dc. 105p. - eric · characteristics, administration and support services, and parent involvement....
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 416 030 PS 026 279
AUTHOR Love, John M.; Meckstroth, Alicia; Sprachman, SusanTITLE Measuring the Quality of Program Environments in Head Start
and Other Early Childhood Programs: A Review andRecommendations for Future Research. Working Paper Series.
INSTITUTION National Center for Education Statistics (ED), Washington,DC.
SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.
REPORT NO NCES-WP-97-36PUB DATE 1997-10-00NOTE 105p.
CONTRACT RN94094001AVAILABLE FROM U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics,555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Room 400, Washington, DC20208-5654; phone: 202-219-1831 (Ruth Harris).
PUB TYPE Reports Research (143)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Classroom Environment; Classroom Observation Techniques;
*Day Care Effects; *Early Childhood Education; *EducationalEnvironment; Educational Research; *EnvironmentalInfluences; Kindergarten; *Measures (Individuals); Outcomesof Education; Parent Participation; Preschool Children;Preschool Teachers
IDENTIFIERS Program Characteristics; *Project Head Start
ABSTRACTThe Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) tracks
children throughout the country as they move from kindergarten through fifthgrade. As part of the ECLS planning process, the possibility was consideredof assessing the program environments of Head Start children before theyentered the ECLS kindergartens. A review was conducted of selectedlarge-scale studies of Head Start, Chapter 1, child care, and other preschoolsettings to ascertain the important dimensions of children's programexperience and to recommend ways of measuring those dimensions. This paperreviews those dimensions and measures of early childhood program environmentsthat could be used in studies of preschool program effects on children'sdevelopment. Following an introduction, chapter 2 of the review defines theimportant dimensions of program environments, drawing largely from researchon early care and education program quality and from Head Start practices asreflected in the Head Start Performance Standards and performance measures.The five dimensions discussed are (1) classroom dynamics; (2) classroom
structure; (3) classroom staff characteristics; (4) administration andsupport services; (5) parent involvement. Existing measures are alsodescribed. Chapter 3 summarizes findings from the 11 studies in which thesemeasures have been used and suggests implications for future research.Chapter 4 presents recommendations for measures to use in future research.Two appendices include a summary of selected studies of Head Start and otherearly childhood program environments and descriptions of observationalinstruments. (HTH)
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS
Working Paper SeriesU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)XThis document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organizationoriginating it.
Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
Measuring the Quality of Program Environmentsin Head Start and Other Early Childhood Programs:A Review and Recommendations for Future Research
Working Paper No. 97-36 October 1997
document do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
4 ,
141448;'so1p..14,go
. -- .... ,* . ** 0:%:1K*7.4...44444 4:****** .&- . - . A .W.......f.!.. -*:.!
.' ... . ....: . .. ..- . . i,...:,:. . se
0
.-'2;17.. VMS-;;
KV.. .;4 I al 111I 0.4.....41
OW...WV 1111".AV
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
r1[1101° COP T AVAIRABLIE
Measuring the Quality of Program Environmentsin Head Start and Other Early Childhood Programs:A Review and Recommendations for Future Research
Working Paper No. 97-36 October 1997
Contact: Jerry WestECLS Project Officer(202) 219-1574e -mail: jerry_west @ed.gov
3 BEST COPY km,. ,
U.S. Department of EducationRichard W. RileySecretary
Office of Educational Research and ImprovementRicky T. TakaiActing Assistant Secretary
National Center for Education StatisticsPascal D. Forgione, Jr.Commissioner
Data Development and Longitudinal Studies GroupMartin OrlandAssociate Commissioner
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressionalmandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of educationin the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significanceof such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and reviewand report on education activities in foreign countries.
NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high qualitydata to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers,practitioners, data users, and the general public.
We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to avariety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicatinginformation effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES productor report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:
National Center for Education StatisticsOffice of Educational Research and ImprovementU.S. Department of Education555 New Jersey Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20208
Suggested Citation
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Measuring the Quality of Program Environments inHead Start and Other Early Childhood Programs: A Review and Recommendations for Future Research, Working Paper No.97-36, by John M. Love, Alicia Meckstroth, and Susan Sprachman. Jerry West, Project Officer. Washington, D.C.: 1997.
October 1997
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Foreword
Each year a large number of written documents are generated by NCES staff andindividuals commissioned by NCES which provide preliminary analyses of survey results andaddress technical, methodological, and evaluation issues. Even though they are not formallypublished, these documents reflect a tremendous amount of unique expertise, knowledge, andexperience.
The Working Paper Series was created in order to preserve the information containedin these documents and to promote the sharing of valuable work experience and knowledge.However, these documents were prepared under different formats and did not undergovigorous NCES publication review and editing prior to their inclusion in the series.Consequently, we encourage users of the series to consult the individual authors for citations.
To receive information about submitting manuscripts or obtaining copies of the series,please contact Ruth R. Harris at (202) 219-1831 or U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, 555 NewJersey Ave., N.W., Room 400, Washington, D.C. 20208-5654.
Samuel S. PengActing DirectorStatistical Standards and Services Group
5
Measuring the Quality of Program Environmentsin Head Start and Other Early Childhood Programs:A Review and Recommendations for Future Research
Prepared by:
John M. LoveAlicia MeckstrothSusan Sprachman
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics undercontract RN94094001 with the National Opinion Research Center.
The views expressed are those of the authors; noendorsement by the government should be inferred.
October 1997
Preface
The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) is a study that will focus onchildren's early school experiences beginning with kindergarten. The ECLS is being developedunder the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES), with additional financial and technical support provided by the Administrationof Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special EducationPrograms and Office of Indian Education, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food andConsumer Service. Approximately 23,000 children throughout the country will be selected toparticipate as they enter kindergarten and will be followed as they move from kindergartenthrough 5th grade. Base-year data will be collected in the fall of 1998, with additional springfollow-up data collections scheduled for 1999 through 2004. Information about children'sneighborhoods, families, schools, and classrooms will be collected from parents, teachers, andschool administrators.
Because of the magnitude and complexity of the ECLS, NCES has set aside an extendedperiod of time for planning, designing, and testing the instruments and procedures that will beused in the main study. NCES and its contractor, the National Opinion Research Center, areusing this time to examine a variety of issues pertaining to the sampling and assessment of youngchildren and their environments. The design phase of the study will culminate in a large-scalefield test during the 1996-97 school year.
NCES has sought the participation and input of many individuals and organizationsthroughout the design phase of the ECLS. The participation of these individuals andorganizations has resulted in a set of design papers that identify policy and research questionsin early education, map the content of the ECLS study instruments to these questions, exploreand evaluate different methods for assessing the development of children and for capturing dataabout their homes, schools, and classrooms.
This paper is one of several that were prepared in support of ECLS design efforts. Whilethe information and recommendations found in this paper have contributed to the design of theECLS, specific methods and procedures may or may not actually be incorporated into the finalECLS design. It is our hope that the information found in this paper not only will providebackground for the development of the ECLS, but will be useful to researchers developingstudies of young children and their education experiences.
Jerry WestECLS Project Officer
vi
7
Jeffrey A. OwingsProgram DirectorData Development and Longitudinal
Studies Group
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
FOREWORD iiiPREFACE viBACKGROUND xi
INTRODUCTION 1
II DIMENSIONS AND MEASURES OF PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS 3
A. CLASSROOM DYNAMICS 5
1. Attributes of Classroom Dynamics 72. Instruments for Measuring Classroom Dynamics 8
B. CLASSROOM STRUCTURE 121. Attributes of Classroom Structure 12
2. Instruments for Measuring Classroom Structure 13
C. CLASSROOM STAFF CHARACTERISTICS 161. Attributes of Staff Characteristics 162. Instruments for Measuring Staff Characteristics 17
D. ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES 21
1. Attributes of Administration and Support Services 212. Instruments for Measuring Administration and Support Services 23
E. PARENT INVOLVEMENT 241. Attributes of Parent Involvement 252. Instruments for Measuring Parent Involvement 27
F. SUMMARY 29
III FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FROM LARGE-SCALE STUDIESMEASURING EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS 31
A. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MEASURINGCLASSROOM DYNAMICS 311. Summary of Findings 312. Implications for Future Research 37
vii
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
IV
Page
B. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MEASURINGCLASSROOM STRUCTURE 381. Summary of Findings 382. Implications for Future Research 39
C. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MEASURING CLASSROOMSTAFF CHARACTERISTICS, ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORTSERVICES, AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT 401. Summary of Findings on Staff Characteristics 402. Summary of Findings on Administration and Support Services 423. Summary of Findings on Parent Involvement 434. Implications for Future Research 44
D. SUMMARY 46
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING EARLYCHILDHOOD PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS 47
A. CLASSROOM DYNAMICS 48
B. CLASSROOM STRUCTURE 51
C. STAFF CHARACTERISTICS 51
D. ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES 52
E. PARENT INVOLVEMENT 53
REFERENCES 55
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF SELECTED STUDIES OF HEADSTART AND OTHER EARLY CHILDHOODPROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS 61
APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTIONS OF OBSERVATIONAL INSTRUMENTS . . 69
viii
9
TABLES
Table Page
ILI SUMMARY OF VARIABLES MEASURING EARLY CHILDHOODCLASSROOM AND PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS 6
11.2 OBSERVATION INSTRUMENTS MEASURING EARLYCHILDHOOD CLASSROOM DYNAMICS 9
11.3 OBSERVATION INSTRUMENTS MEASURING EARLYCHILDHOOD CLASSROOM STRUCTURE 15
11.4 KEY VARIABLES FROM MAJOR STUDIES USING SURVEYINSTRUMENTS TO MEASURE CLASSROOM STAFFCHARACTERISTICS, ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES,AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT 19
III.1 HIGHLIGHTS OF LARGE-SCALE STUDIES MEASURING EARLYCHILDHOOD PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS 32
IV.1 RECOMMENDED EARLY CHILDHOOD CLASSROOM ANDPROGRAM ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES AND MEASURES 49
ix 10
BACKGROUND
This paper is an outgrowth of planning for the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS).
ECLS is a study of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) being conducted by the
National Opinion Research Center (NORC) and its subcontractors. Approximately 23,000 children
throughout the country will be selected to participate as they enter kindergarten and will be followed
as they move from kindergarten through fifth grade. Because of their importance in influencing
children's school outcomes, the environments in which children live and learn will be studied. NORC
will collect extensive information about the children's neighborhoods, families, schools, and
classrooms from parents, teachers, school administrators, and the children themselves. The programs
children experience before entering kindergarten are also an important influence in their growth and
development through the elementary school years.
As part of the early ECLS planning process, we considered the possibility of assessing the
program environments of Head Start children before they entered the ECLS kindergartens. We
reviewed selected large-scale studies of Head Start, Chapter 1, child care, and other preschool settings
to ascertain the important dimensions of children's program experience and to recommend ways of
measuring those dimensions. NCES then commissioned this review to provide background
information for researchers conducting longitudinal studies who may be interested in assessing
children's program experiences in a variety of prekindergarten settings.
11xi
I. INTRODUCTION
Children do not grow up in isolation. Before they enter school, their growth and development are
influenced by the nurturance of their family relationships (Laosa 1984; Powell 1989; and Scott-Jones
1984), the economic resources of their neighborhoods (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, and Sealand
1993), and the quality of the out-of-home programs and care arrangements they experience (Hayes,
Palmer, and Zaslow 1990). As children age and begin to spend more and more time outside of the family
environment, the predominant influence of the family begins to wane, and the influence of neighborhood
and program environments gains in importance (Cochran and Riley 1990). By the time children reachage
4, approximately 50 percent attend formal center-based programs for at least a portion of the day (West,
Hausken, and Collins 1993). Of this group, almost 750,000 attend Head Start forone or more years before
entering kindergarten.
As preschool, child care, Head Start, and other early education programs become increasingly
important in the lives of children and their families, policymakers and researchers look for ways to assess
the dimensions of program experiences and relate them to children's growth and development. The
purpose of this paper is to review dimensions and measures of early childhood program environments that
could be used in studies of preschool program effects on children's development. In Chapter II, we define
the important dimensions of program environments, drawing largely from research on early care and
education program quality and from Head Start practices as reflected in the Head Start Performance
Standards (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1984) and performance measures (Ellsworth
Associates 1995). In addition, Chapter II describes existing measures. In Chapter III, we summarize
findings from the 11 studies in which these measures have been used and suggest implications for future
research. Our review focuses on large-scale studies of Head Start and related early childhood programs
that have used classroom observation instruments and/or surveys to assess dimensions of program quality
1
12BEST COPY AVAL,i,..,
and were conducted within the past seven years (see Appendix A). Chapter IV presents our
recommendations for measures to use in future research.
Chapters II and M largely draw upon the same literature. In Chapter II, our focus is on
conceptualizing the major dimensions of early childhood program environments and describing instruments
used for assessing those dimensions. In Chapter M, we summarize key findings relating program
dimensions to children's development and well-being and use these findings to suggest strategies for
conducting future research, in terms of both conceptual focus and methodological approaches.
13
2
II. DIMENSIONS AND MEASURES OF PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS
Hundreds of variables have been identified in past efforts to measure early childhood program
environments. To provide a conceptual organization of the variables, we discuss five dimensions
commonly used to describe features of the program environment for children enrolled in early childhood
programs: (1) classroom dynamics, (2) classroom structure, (3) classroom staff characteristics, (4)
administration and support services, and (5) parent involvement. In this chapter, we describe these
dimensions and the major instruments used for measuring their characteristics.
In seeking precedents for conceptualizing the dimensions of program environments, we examined the
literature on program quality. Quality typically is conceptualized as the features of children's environments
and experiences that are presumed to be beneficial to their well-being. Extensive research has investigated
the extent to which features of program environments are empirically associated with aspects of children's
growth and development (see, for example, reviews by Hayes et al. 1990; Howes 1988, and 1990; and
Phillips 1987). On the basis of a blend of research and practice, the National Association for the Education
of Young Children (NAEYC) has developed detailed descriptions of the elements of quality in what it
refers to as "developmentally appropriate practice" (Bredekamp 1987). In developmentally appropriate
programs, caregivers encourage children to be actively engaged in a variety of activities; have frequent,
positive interactions with children that include smiling, touching, holding, and speaking at children's eye
level; promptly respond to children's questions or requests; and encourage children to talk about their
experiences, feelings, and ideas. Caregivers also listen attentively; ask open-ended questions and extend
children's actions and verbalizations with more complex ideas or materials; interact with children
individually and in small groups, instead of exclusively with the class as a whole; use positive guidance
techniques; and encourage appropriate independence.
3 14
In addition to teacher or caregiver behaviors, which form the core of the dynamics of children's
classroom experiences, definitions of quality often include structural features of the program (such as
classroom structure and safety features), program administration, and supportive services (Ferrar 1996).
No clear agreement exists, however, on how to categorize the large number of environmental variables
used to define dimensions of quality and what factors to include in each dimension. In part, disagreement
stems from different perceptions about whether a variable is essential to a quality environment that
promotes optimal child development or is correlated with quality but is not an essential ingredient
Howes (1992) views quality of program as one of three broad sets of variables required for
trade/standing characteristics of child care, including preschool programs. (The other two are child care
history, and the nature and form of the child care settingfor example, informal or formal, for-profit or
nonprofit.) For Howes, quality variables fall into three categories: structure, process, and practice (or
curriculum). Harms (1992) defines two major categories of early childhood program variables: (1)
administration, and (2) children's program functions. Administration includes personnel, program
resources, and management Children's program functions include structural variables (space, materials,
people, and recurring patterns) and processes or interactions.
Layzer, Goodson, and Moss (1993) define quality in terms of three sets of classroom processes:
(1) pattern and content of activities and groups across the day; (2) behavior and interactions of teaching
staff; and (3) behavior and interactions of children. These authors consider other program elements as
potential predictors of quality. Thus, whereas many researchers consider such factors as child-staff ratio
or teacher experience to be aspects of quality, Layzer et al. classify these factors (which are primarily
characteristics of the classroom, the program, and the staff) as program elements to be understood because
they may strongly influence the quality reflected in classroom processes. Love, Ryer, and Faddis (1992)
also view quality elements as classroom-based but include structural variables (such as group size and
child-staff ratio), along with classroom dynamics, children's behavior, and the behavior of caregivers.
415
They view other program variables (such as staff qualifications, child turnover, program auspice, and
parent involvement) as contextual factors that may influence classroom quality.
Phillips (1987), on the other hand, argues that quality is a configuration of ingredients that include
child-staff ratios, staff training, and parent participation. Phillips and Howes (1987) note that quality
dimensions include (1) structural aspects, such as group composition and staff qualifications; (2) dynamic
aspects of children's daily experience; and (3) contextual aspects, such as type of setting and staff stability.
Similarly, in developing definitions and measures of quality for the Expanded Child Care Options (ECCO)
study, Ferrar (1996) takes a broad view of quality as encompassing four domains: (1) the classroom
(including child and adult interactions, physical environment and materials, developmentally appropriate
practices, and structural features), (2) the program's supportive services (including health, mental health,
nutrition, social services, and parent involvement), (3) program administration (staff qualifications, group
size and ratio, planning and evaluation, personnel practices, and continuity of care), and (4) safety
(facilities, outdoor play space, and safety procedures).
The two common features of these conceptualizations of program environments are (1) the distinction
between the dynamic (interactional) and structural features of classrooms and (2) the acknowledgment that
the larger program context or characteristics found outside the classroom are important determinants of
the quality of children's classroom experience. Therefore, we include classroom dynamics and structure
as the first two program environment dimensions. Consistent with the research literature, we distinguish
three additional dimensions of the program environment: (1) classroom staff characteristics,
(2) administration and support services, and (3) parent involvement. Table IL 1 summarizes the classroom
and program variables that we discuss under each of the five dimensions.
A. CLASSROOM DYNAMICS
The dynamics of the classroom environment describe the processes through which children learn and
interact on a daily basis. These processes include the interactions children have with adults and with each
5 16 BEST COPY iiviiiLhoLL
IL
TA
BL
E 1
1.1
SUM
MA
RY
OF
VA
RIA
BL
ES
ME
ASU
RIN
G E
AR
LY
CH
ILD
HO
OD
CL
ASS
RO
OM
AN
D P
RO
GR
AM
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NT
S
Cla
ssro
om D
ynam
ics
Cla
ssro
om S
truc
ture
Staf
f C
hara
cter
istic
sA
dmin
istr
atio
n an
d Su
ppor
t Ser
vice
sPa
rent
Inv
olve
men
t
Inte
ract
ions
Lan
guag
e re
ason
ing
expe
rien
ces
Soci
al d
evel
opm
ent
Tea
cher
-chi
ld in
tera
ctio
nsC
hild
-chi
ld in
tera
ctio
nsT
each
er r
espo
nsiv
enes
s to
child
ren
Indi
vidu
aliz
atio
nC
areg
iver
beh
avio
rs (
posi
tive
rela
tions
hips
, pun
itive
ness
,de
tach
men
t, pe
rmis
sive
ness
,pr
osoc
ial i
nter
actio
n)
Cur
ricu
lum
and
Act
iviti
esFi
ne a
nd g
ram
mot
or a
ctiv
ities
Cre
ativ
e ac
tiviti
esSu
ppor
t for
var
iety
of
lear
ning
expe
rien
ces
Enc
oura
gem
ent o
f ac
tive
invo
lvem
ent o
f ch
ildre
nIn
stru
ctio
nal p
ract
ices
(dev
elop
men
tal
appr
opri
aten
ess)
Typ
e an
d fr
eque
ncy
of a
ctiv
ities
Chi
ld-i
nitia
ted
activ
ities
Mat
eria
lsL
earn
ing
envi
ronm
ent
Play
mat
eria
lsC
oncr
ete
mat
eria
ls
Phys
ical
Spa
ceSq
uare
foo
tage
Prov
isio
n of
pri
vate
, com
fort
able
area
s fo
r ch
ildre
nC
hild
-siz
ed f
acili
ties
Spac
e fo
r gr
oup
activ
ities
Spac
e ac
cess
ible
to c
hild
ren
with
spec
ial n
eeds
Cla
ssro
om f
urni
shin
gsC
hild
per
sona
l-ca
re r
outin
esSa
fety
and
hea
lth f
eatu
res
Adu
lt ne
eds
(sep
arat
e sp
ace
for
adul
ts, p
rofe
ssio
nal l
ibra
ry f
orst
aff)
Stab
ility
of
Enr
ollm
ent
Num
ber
of c
hild
ren
ente
ring
or
leav
ing
prog
ram
Num
ber
of v
acan
cies
Len
gth
of ti
me
to ti
ll va
canc
ies
Abs
ente
e ra
te
Org
aniz
atio
n of
Car
egiv
ers
and
Chi
ldre
n In
the
Cla
ssro
omPr
ogra
m s
ize
Cla
ssro
om s
ize
Chi
ld-s
taff
rat
ioG
roup
ings
of
child
ren
Num
ber
of c
hild
ren,
by
age
Num
ber
of s
taff
; by
role
Num
ber
of v
olun
teer
s or
aid
es
Edu
catio
nal A
ttahu
nent
Deg
rees
atta
ined
Rec
eipt
of
Chi
ld D
evel
opm
ent
Ass
ocia
te c
rede
ntia
lsT
rain
ing
in c
hild
dev
elop
men
tO
ther
rel
evan
t cou
rse
wor
k
Dev
elop
men
t and
Tra
inin
gO
ppor
tuni
ties
and
Part
icip
atio
nIn
-ser
vice
trai
ning
Out
side
wor
ksho
ps a
nd c
lass
es
Es
peri
ence
Num
ber
of y
ears
of
teac
hing
expe
rien
ceN
umbe
r or
yea
rs o
f ea
rly
child
hood
pro
gram
exp
erie
nce
Num
ber
of y
ears
in c
urre
ntpr
ogra
mO
ther
pos
ition
s he
ld
Sala
ries
and
Ben
efits
Opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r ad
vanc
emen
tW
ages
of
clas
sroo
m s
taff
Ran
ge o
f be
nefi
ts
Tur
nove
r R
ate
Cla
ssro
om s
taff
turn
over
rat
eT
ime
requ
ired
to f
ill o
peni
ngs
Prof
essi
onal
ism
Car
eer
path
sSt
aff
inpu
thir
ing
deci
sion
sT
each
ing
appr
oacW
philo
soph
yL
eade
rshi
p ab
ility
Prof
essi
onal
sat
isfa
ctio
n
Dem
ogra
phic
sG
ende
rR
ace
Rac
iaV
ellm
ic m
atch
bet
wee
n st
aff
and
child
ren
and
betw
een
staf
fan
d co
mm
unity
Dir
ecto
r/A
dmin
istr
ator
Qua
lific
atio
nsE
duca
tiona
l atta
inm
ent/d
egre
esPr
ior
expe
rien
ce in
ear
ly c
hild
car
ean
d ed
ucat
ion
Prio
r ex
peri
ence
in n
onpr
ofit
orga
niza
tion
man
agem
ent
Rel
evan
t tra
inin
g co
urse
s
Stat
T C
oord
inat
ion
and
Ass
essm
ent
Adm
inis
trat
ive
lead
ersh
ip a
ndph
iloso
phy
Staf
f sa
tisfa
ctio
nSt
aff
inpu
tpro
gram
dec
isio
nsSt
aff
mee
tings
Staf
f ev
alua
tions
Staf
f kn
owle
dge
of p
erso
nnel
polic
ies
and
proc
edur
es
Prog
ram
Cha
ract
eris
tics
Aus
pice
Stat
e lic
ensi
ng s
tatu
sSp
onso
rshi
pN
AE
YC
acc
redi
tatio
nPr
ogra
m g
oals
/phi
loso
phy
Prog
ram
Sch
edul
eH
ours
per
day
Day
s pe
r w
eek
Wee
ks p
er y
ear
Fina
ncia
l Cap
acity
Rev
enue
s an
d re
venu
e so
urce
sIn
-kin
d do
natio
nsT
otal
cos
t per
chi
ldPa
rent
al f
ees
Vol
unte
er a
ssis
tanc
e
Supp
ortiv
e Se
rvic
es f
orC
ldld
ren/
Fam
illes
Hea
lth, m
enta
l hea
lth, a
nd d
enta
lca
re s
ervi
ces
Mai
nten
ance
of
heal
th r
ecor
dsC
ase
man
agem
ent/m
onito
ring
Com
mun
ity a
genc
y re
ferr
als
Com
mun
ity a
genc
y co
llabo
ratio
n
Pare
nt P
artic
ipat
ion
In C
lass
room
Vol
unte
erin
gfl
assr
oom
vis
iting
Pare
nt I
nvol
vem
ent i
n Pa
rent
-E
duca
tion
Act
iviti
esPa
rtic
ipat
ion
in e
duca
tion
prog
ram
s, w
orks
hops
, and
coun
selin
g se
rvic
esH
ome
visi
ts b
y st
aff
Pare
nt I
nvol
vem
ent I
n Pr
ogra
mD
ecis
ion
Mak
ing
Part
icip
atio
n on
pro
gram
com
mitt
ees
Pare
nt I
nter
actio
n w
ith O
ther
Pare
nts
Supp
ortiv
e re
latio
nshi
ps a
mon
gpa
rent
s
Pare
nt A
ppro
ach
to C
hild
Dev
elop
men
t In
the
Hom
ePa
rent
-chi
ld in
tera
ctio
nsD
evel
opm
enta
lly a
ppro
pria
teac
tiviti
es a
nd m
ater
ials
Pare
ntin
g sk
ills
and
disc
iplin
ary
styl
ePa
rent
atti
tude
s to
war
d an
dex
pect
atio
ns o
f ch
ildre
n
Pare
nt I
nter
actio
n w
ith S
taff
and
Com
mun
ity M
embe
rsFr
eque
ncy
of s
taff
-pa
rent
inte
ract
ions
Freq
uenc
y of
teac
her-
pare
ntm
eetin
gsC
ase
man
agem
ent t
echn
ique
sPa
rent
-tea
cher
rel
atio
nshi
pE
xist
ence
of
open
-doo
r vi
sita
tion
polic
yR
elat
ions
hip
of te
ache
r va
lues
and
prac
tices
to p
aren
t val
ues
and
prac
tices
Invo
lvem
ent w
ith in
divi
dual
s an
dor
gani
zatio
ns in
the
com
mun
ity
NA
EY
C =
Nat
iona
l Ass
ocia
tion
for
the
Edu
catio
n of
You
ng C
hild
ren.
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
other, as well as the interactions among adults. After discussing the attributes of classroom dynamics, we
review commonly used instruments for measuring them.
1. Attributes of Classroom Dynamics
By definition, classroom dynamics comprise all the interactions of children and adults. Because of
the importance of teaching strategies and curriculum focus for children's development (Burrs, Hart,
Charlesworth, and Kirk 1990; and Marcon 1994), we believe it is useful to separate out those teacher-child
interactions that are used to characterize "teaching." We refer to these as program activities. We also
include classroom materials as a component of dynamics, because how children interact with materials and
how teachers use them in their instruction are more important for children's development than are the
physical attributes of the materials.
Therefore, we characterize classroom dynamics by focusing on three attributes of the classroom
environment: (1) interactions, (2) curriculum and activities, and (3) materials that caregivers and children
use. Classroom interactions include the manner in which teachers and caregivers interact with children
and how children interact with each other. Specifically, interactions encompass the relationship between
children and teachers, the level of direction teachers provide and initiative children take, teacher acceptance
of children, the level of teacher feedback, the relationships among children, and the level of child
participation and responsibility in classroom activities. Interactions also include the informal assessments
teachers use to monitor their classrooms' dynamics and to make adjustments to accommodate children's
needs.
Some writers distinguish classroom practices, or curriculum, from other features of dynamics (see,
for example, Howes 1992); however, we include curriculum practices in this dimension because they
encompass many of the dynamics of caregiver-child interactions. Thus, another important attribute of
classroom dynamics is the classroom activities that constitute developmentally appropriate or inappropriate
practices. Important aspects of classroom activities include the balance between instructional and play-
7
29
oriented activities, the balance between group and individual activities, the level of fine and gross motor
activities in which children engage, the nature of activities supporting social and cognitive development,
and the degree to which the activities are well planned and organized. The materials with which children
interact in their learning environment can be described in terms of their appropriateness for the
developmental level of children in the classroom.
2. Instruments for Measuring Classroom Dynamics
The available instruments we describe measure different aspects of classroom dynamics; provide
different techniques for describing, coding, and classifying this important feature of the program
environment; and have varying levels of precision in measuring classroom dynamics. The ease of training
field staff to use the instruments also varies considerably. Classroom dynamics is the one dimension of
the five we discuss that requires direct observation. (Although some studies have attempted to use survey
methods, these are unsatisfactory for capturing the dynamics of classroom interactions most likely to
enhance children's development)
In studies examining the quality of early care and education programs, five instruments have been
used most widely for measuring dimensions of classroom dynamics:
1. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS)
2. Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs (Assessment Profile)
3. Arnett Scale of Caregiver Behavior (Arnett Scale)
4. Classroom Practices Inventory (CPI)
5. Preschool Classroom Snapshot (PCS)
Table 11.2 summarizes these instruments and the dimensions they measure; Appendix B provides more
details and psychometric information. The first four instruments yield global, or overall, measures of the
quality of classroom dynamics and provide ratings of a number of classroom dynamics. The fifth
82
TA
BL
E 1
1.2
OB
SER
VA
TIO
N I
NST
RU
ME
NT
S M
EA
SUR
ING
EA
RL
Y C
HIL
DH
OO
D C
LA
SSR
OO
M D
YN
AM
ICS
Inst
rum
ent D
escr
iptio
nD
imen
sion
s of
Cla
ssro
om D
ynam
ics
ittot
ly M
ama
P.M
illtu
ttitit
t Rat
h:I/S
alle
(R
ektR
S)f
ilara
te a
tal (
"Coe
d 19
80)
A 3
7-ite
m in
stru
men
t usi
ng a
sev
en-p
oint
rat
ing
scal
e th
atpr
ovid
es e
xten
sive
des
crip
tive
info
rmat
ion
on th
e cl
assr
oom
and
allo
ws
obse
rver
s to
mak
e co
mpl
ex ju
dgm
ents
on
the
qual
ity o
f th
e en
viro
nmen
t. R
atin
gs o
n ea
ch it
em r
ange
from
1 =
"In
adeq
uate
'' to
7 =
"E
xcel
lent
."
Chi
ldre
n's
lang
uage
-rea
soni
ng e
xper
ienc
es, f
ine
and
gros
s m
otor
act
iviti
es, c
reat
ive
activ
ities
, and
soc
ial
deve
lopm
ent.
Oth
er d
imen
sion
s of
EC
ER
S as
sess
clas
sroo
m s
truc
ture
(se
e T
able
11.
3).
Rel
evan
t Stu
dies
Usi
ng I
nstr
umen
t
Obs
erva
tiona
l Stu
dy o
f E
arly
Chi
ldho
od P
rogr
ams
(OSE
CP)
Nat
iona
l Chi
ld C
are
Staf
fing
stu
dy (
NC
CS)
Hea
d St
art F
amily
and
Cla
ssro
om C
orre
late
s st
udy
(HSF
CC
)C
ost,
Qua
lity,
and
Chi
ld O
utco
mes
in C
hild
Car
e C
ente
rs(C
QC
0)
kest
onta
tiO
b r
g a
r l r
O d
l e
l h a
o 4
P ro
g r
ft s
(A
bhot
talti
i Sih
kg. a
nt N
ee. 1
991)
An
obse
rvat
iona
l che
cklis
t con
tain
ing
147
Yes
/No
item
s.O
bser
vers
indi
cate
whe
ther
pro
gram
cha
ract
eris
tics
indi
cativ
e of
qua
lity
are
pres
ent.
A 2
6-ite
m in
stru
men
t usi
ng a
fou
r-po
int s
cale
to r
ate
the
emot
iona
l ton
e, d
isci
plin
e st
yle,
and
res
pons
iven
ess
ofte
ache
rs a
nd c
areg
iver
s in
a c
lass
room
. Rat
ings
on
each
item
ran
ge f
rom
1 =
"N
ot a
t all
char
acte
rist
ic o
f th
eca
regi
ver"
to 4
= "
Ver
y ch
arac
teri
stic
of
the
care
give
r."
7
As
adap
ted
by G
oods
on (
1990
), a
30-
item
sca
le c
ompo
sed
of s
tate
men
ts o
n cl
assr
oom
pra
ctic
es, t
each
er b
ehav
iors
,ch
ildre
n's
activ
ities
, and
teac
her-
child
inte
ract
ions
. Ite
ms
clas
sifi
ed a
s ei
ther
dev
elop
men
tally
app
ropr
iate
(15
item
s)or
inap
prop
riat
e (1
5 ite
ms)
acc
ordi
ng to
NA
EY
Cgu
idel
ines
. Obs
erve
r us
es a
fiv
e-po
int s
cale
for
eac
hst
atem
ent t
o in
dica
te th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
it r
epre
sent
s th
ecl
assr
oom
. Rat
ings
on
each
sta
tem
ent r
ange
fro
m I
= "
Not
at a
ll lik
e th
is"
to S
= "
Ver
y m
uch
like
this
."
Lea
rnin
g en
viro
nmen
t, cu
rric
ulum
, int
erac
ting,
indi
vidu
aliz
ing.
Oth
er d
imen
sion
s of
the
Ass
essm
ent
Prof
ile a
sses
s cl
assr
oom
str
uctu
re (
see
Tab
le 1
1.3)
.
Obs
erva
tiona
l Stu
dy o
f E
arly
Chi
ldho
od P
rogr
ams
(OSE
CP)
Cal
ifor
nia
Staf
f/C
hild
Rat
io s
tudy
(C
SCR
)
Attr
eft
iittli
tete
Per D
ehso
iar
(Arn
ett /
Ng%
Tea
cher
beh
avio
rs c
lass
ifie
d in
term
s of
pos
itive
rela
tions
hips
(w
arm
, res
pons
ive,
atte
ntiv
e, e
ncou
ragi
ng);
puni
tiven
ess
(har
sh, c
ritic
al);
det
achm
ent.,
perm
issi
vene
ss (
or c
ontr
ollin
g be
havi
ors)
; pro
soci
al
Obs
erva
tiona
l Stu
dy o
f E
arly
Chi
ldho
od P
rogr
ams
(OSE
CP)
Cal
ifor
nia
Staf
l7C
hild
Rat
io s
tudy
(C
SCR
)N
atio
nal C
hild
Car
e St
affi
ng s
tudy
(N
CC
S)C
ost,
Qua
lity,
and
Chi
ld O
utco
mes
in C
hild
Car
e C
ente
rsin
tera
ctio
n.(C
QC
O)
thip
roos
n P
arts4,
44in
vent
ory
Kit 0
,119
0gii
two)
Dev
elop
men
tally
app
ropr
iate
and
inap
prop
riat
e pr
actic
esre
latin
g to
sev
en c
ompo
nent
s of
the
NA
EY
C g
uide
lines
:te
achi
ng s
trat
egie
s, g
uida
nce
of s
ocio
emot
iona
lde
velo
pmen
t, la
ngua
ge d
evel
opm
ent,
cogn
itive
deve
lopm
ent,
phys
ical
dev
elop
men
t, ae
sthe
ticde
velo
pmen
t, an
d m
otiv
atio
n.
A ti
me-
sam
plin
g ob
serv
atio
n te
chni
que
to c
aptu
re 2
7ca
tego
ries
of
activ
ities
at t
he e
nd o
f 5-
to 1
0-m
inut
ein
terv
als.
Sna
psho
ts a
re r
ecor
ded
at m
ultip
le ti
mes
dur
ing
the
obse
rvat
ion
peri
od.
Act
iviti
es o
ccur
ring
(ad
min
istr
ativ
e,co
ncre
te/m
anip
ulat
ive,
sym
bolic
, act
ive
play
); g
roup
ing
patte
rns
of c
hild
ren
(sm
all,
med
ium
, lar
ge);
fre
quen
cy o
fac
tiviti
es; a
dult
inte
ract
ion
with
gro
ups;
teac
her
and
aide
resp
onsi
bilit
ies;
chi
ld in
depe
nden
ce. O
ther
dim
ensi
ons
of P
CS
asse
ss c
lass
room
str
uctu
re (
see
Tab
le 1
1.3)
Obs
erva
tiona
l Stu
dy o
f E
arly
Chi
ldho
od P
rogr
ams
(OSE
CP)
Cal
ifor
nia
Staf
f7C
hild
Rat
io s
tudy
(C
SCR
)
1
Obs
erva
tiona
l Stu
dy o
f E
arly
Chi
ldho
od P
rogr
ams
(OSE
CP)
Cal
ifor
nia
Staf
llChi
ld R
atio
stu
dy (
CSC
R)
NA
EY
C =
Nat
iona
l Ass
ocia
tion
for
the
Edu
catio
n of
You
ng C
hild
ren.
21B
EST
CO
PYA
VA
ILA
BL
E22
instrument, the Preschool Classroom Snapshot, is a "micro-observation" measure that gives more-detailed
characterizations of specific elements of classroom dynamics '
The ECERS, Assessment Profile, and PCS are observational tools that describe both the dynamics
and the structure of the classroom. For classroom dynamics, they include both interactions and program
activities. ECERS rates the value of a child's classroom experiences in several areas: language-reasoning
experiences, fine and gross motor activities, creative activities, and social development. The Assessment
Profile focuses on four aspects of the dynamic classroom environment: (1) the learning environment (play
materials, arrangement of classroom space), (2) the curriculum (supporting a variety of learning
experiences, encouraging active involvement of children), (3) interactions (teacher-child interactions,
teacher responsiveness to children), and (4) individualizing (supporting children's unique needs). The PCS
records the types and frequency of specific classroom activities and the ways in which children are
grouped. Activities from the PCS can be coded in various ways, including administrative,
concrete/manipulative, symbolic, and active play. For example, playing with blocks can be classified as
symbolic play or simply coded as block play. An advantage of these detailed observation records is that
researchers can later interpret the data in a variety of ways.
The Amett Scale and the CPI focus only on classroom dynamics. The Amett Scale allows researchers
to classify teacher behavior and interactions along five or six dimensions. Depending oU the study in which
the measure has been used, caregiver behavior is categorized in terms of (1) positive relationships (warm,
responsive, attentive, and encouraging), (2) punitiveness (harsh or critical), (3) detachment,
'Micro-observation measures characterize fine-grained behaviors and interactions within a classroom.For example, ever)/ 10 minutes an observer could count the number of different groups of children in aclassroom and the number of children in each group. Using this information, researchers can calculate theaverage number of groups over the course of a day. In contrast, for a global assessment of the samevariable, an observer might rate the classroom as having few, some, or many different groupings ofchildren.
2 3lo
(4) permissiveness (or controlling behaviors), and (5) prosocial interaction.' The CPI focuses on program
activities. It describes developmentally appropriate practices using questions on direct experiences,
concrete materials, child-initiated activities, and social interaction.
In addition to these observation instruments, some surveys have obtained teacher or administrator self-
reports about classroom practices. For example, the National Transition Study (NTS) surveyed school
administrators to obtain ratings on the extent to which developmentally appropriate and inappropriate
practices occurred in kindergarten classrooms (Love, Logue, Trudeau, and Thayer 1992). The same items,
derived from NAEYC guidelines, could apply to Head Start classrooms. Surveys are not ideally suited
for measuring classroom dynamics, however; we recommend using such measures only if observations
are not feasible.
The observational instruments listed differ in their ease of use. As one of the earliest attempts to
quantify the quality dimensions of early childhood programs, the ECERS has been widely and reliably used
(in 4 of the 11 studies reviewed here). Its ratings are complex because each of the 37 items is
multidimensional. Nevertheless, clear statements describe rating levels for each item, and raters can be
trained to make reliable ratings (Scarr, Eisenberg, and Deater-Deckard 1994). The Assessment Profile
is more straightforward because simple descriptive statements are rated "yes" or "no." (For example: "A
quiet activity area exists in the room where one or two children may choose to be alone.") As a
consequence, training is somewhat easier for the Assessment Profile than for the ECERS. However, the
ECERS measures richer gradations in classroom quality. The CPI, like the Assessment Profile, uses
simpler statements than the ECERS. Because it is newer, it is closely aligned with the characteristics of
developmentally appropriate and inappropriate practices as articulated by NAEYC (Bredekamp 1987).
The Arnett Scale taps dimensions that are not measured by the ECERS, the Assessment Profile, or the CPI.
'Most studies have reported the results of factor analysis of the 26 Arnett items. Although the factorstructures are highly comparable across studies, researchers have used somewhat different labels for thefactors.
11 BEST COPY fivt-
24
It requires more judgment on the part of the observer; with training and practice, however, observers can
use the scale reliably (Layzer et al. 1993; and Love, Ryer, and Faddis 1992).
While these instruments have been widely used in studies of early care and education programs, some
have also been used to measure kindergarten classrooms. The study of Chapter 1 (now Title I) early
childhood programs (Seppanen, Godin, Metzger, Bronson, and Cichon 1993) examined (1) the
relationships between Chapter 1 prekindergarten classroom environments and children's cognitive and
socioemotional development, and (2) the ways in which children's programmatic experiences changed
from prekindergarten to kindergarten. The study used all five of these instruments, or adaptions of them,
to examine both classroom dynamics and classroom structure in 55 prekindergarten classrooms and 48
kindergarten classrooms. No studies, to the best of our knowledge, have used these instruments in any of
the higher grades, although one version of the Assessment Profile is designed for assessing the quality of
school-age child care for children 5 to 10 years of age.
B. CLASSROOM STRUCTURE
The structure of the classroom environment refers to the noninteractive aspects of the child's
surroundings. These are considered important features of the classroom because many aspects of the
physical classroom can either enhance or detract from the early childhood learning environment. Structural
components often assume prominence in discussions of program quality because they are readily observed,
can be more easily regulated than classroom dynamics, and have been shown to relate to both dynamic
features of the classroom and to children's well-being (Hayes et al. 1990; Howes, Phillips, and Whitebook
1992; Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, and Coelen 1979; and Whitebook, Howes, and Phillips 1989).
1. Attributes of Classroom Structure
We characterize the structure of the classroom by focusing on three elements: (1) physical space
(including variables describing safety and health features and adult needs), (2) stability or turnover in
1225
enrollment, and (3) organization of caregivers and children in the classroom. The physical space of the
classroom environment includes the quantity and the quality of the space, both for children and adults.
Variables that measure space encompass the following features of a classroom facility: square footage;
provision of private, comfortable areas for children; child-sized facilities; space for group activities; safety
features (both inside and outside); separate space exclusively for adults; space that is accessible to children
with special needs; and a professional library for staff.
The stability of a classroom is reflected in rates of child and teacher turnover. The components of
child turnover include the number of vacancies in the center over the year, the length of time needed to fill
vacancies, and the absentee rate. Perhaps the best index, however, is simply the number of children ever
enrolled during a year relative to the average daily attendance. (We include teacher turnover as a staff
characteristics variable.)
Finally, the manner in which a classroom is organized includes the size of the classroom, the child-
staff ratio, the groupings of children, the numbers of children of different ages, the numbers of staff by role,
and the number of volunteers or aides. Partly because they are inexpensive to measure and amenable to
regulation and monitoring by licensing agencies, child-staff ratio and group size have become two
commonly used indicators of classroom quality. NAEYC provides standard guidelines for both of these
components of a classroom's structure. These structural variables have been found to be related to the
level of individual care and attention a child receives, as well as to the quality of a child's interactions with
other children and with adults. Because of these relationships, these structural features often are described
as proxies for quality.
2. Instruments for Measuring Classroom Structure
Three observation instruments already discussed (the ECERS, Assessment Profile, and PCS) have
been used frequently to measure the structure and organization of early care and education programs. In
addition, data on many of the classroom structure variables have been collected through interviews with
13 26
program administrators and caregivers. Table II.3 summarizes the major observation instruments and
studies that have used them.
All three of the observation instruments are versatile, collecting information on classroom structure
and other aspects of the overall program environment. The ECERS depicts classroom structure through
three broad topic areas: (1) classroom furnishings; (2) personal-care routines of children; and (3) adult
needs, including the availability of areas for personal use and meetings. The Assessment Profile depicts
classroom structure primarily through the safety and health features of a classroom (that is, safe supplies,
preparation for accidents and emergencies, the availability of first-aid supplies, existence of emergency
procedures, and maintenance of personal hygiene). The PCS, using a time-sampling technique, looks at
classroom .structure by examining groupings of children, child-staff ratios, and total group size during
different periods in the day.
Observation instruments are best suited for collecting data on child-staff ratio, group size, physical
space, safety, and health characteristics. However, the Profile of Child Care Settings (PCCS) study
(Kisker, Hofferth, Phillips, and Farquhar 1991) demonstrated the feasibility of using survey measures to
gather data on child-staff ratio, group size, and health and safety features. Nevertheless, comparisons of
self-report and observation data indicate that the two methods do not yield identical results on group size
and child-staff ratio (Love, Ryer, and Faddis 1992; and Scarr et al. 1994). In spite of these shortcomings,
survey interview methods have been used to obtain measures of structural variables that are as.r ziated
with dynamic variables and are much less expensive (Layzer et al. 1993). Director interviews or program
records are best suited for obtaining information on student stability or turnover in enrollment. For
example, the National Child Care Staffing (NCCS) study used interviews with program directors and staff
to gather data on classroom stability, child turnover, and the organization of teachers and caregivers
(Whitebook et al. 1989). The PCCS study asked a series of survey questions on child turnover (Kisker
et al. 1991).
2714
TA
BLE
11.
3
OB
SE
RV
AT
ION
INS
TR
UM
EN
TS
ME
AS
UR
ING
EA
RLY
CH
ILD
HO
OD
CLA
SS
RO
OM
ST
RU
CT
UR
E
Inst
rum
ent D
escr
iptio
nD
imen
sion
s of
Cla
ssro
om S
truc
ture
Rel
evan
t Stu
dies
liki
ng In
stru
men
t
Els
* C
hild
hood
ihry
lrono
sent
Pol
ing
Sol
ite (
EC
EP
4) (
Ham
s N
od a
war
d iv
so
A 3
7-ite
m in
stru
men
t usi
ng a
sev
en-p
oint
rat
ing
scal
e th
atpr
ovid
es e
xten
sive
des
crip
tive
info
rmat
ion
on th
e cl
assr
oom
and
allo
ws
obse
rver
s to
mak
e co
mpl
ex ju
dgm
ents
on
the
qual
ity o
f the
env
ironm
ent.
Rat
ings
on
each
item
ran
gefr
om 1
= "
Inad
equa
te"
to 7
= "
Exc
elle
nt."
An
obse
rvat
iona
l che
cklis
t con
tain
ing
147
Yes
/No
item
s.O
bser
vers
indi
cate
whe
ther
pro
gram
cha
ract
eris
tics
indi
cativ
e of
qua
lity
are
pres
ent.
Chi
ldre
n's
pers
onal
-car
e ro
utin
es, c
lass
room
furn
ishi
ngs
and
disp
lay,
and
adu
lt ne
eds.
Oth
er d
imen
sion
s of
EC
ER
S a
sses
s cl
assr
oom
dyn
amic
s (s
ee T
able
11.
2).
Saf
ety
and
heal
th. O
ther
dim
ensi
ons
of th
e A
sses
smen
tP
rofil
e as
sess
cla
ssro
om d
ynam
ics
(see
Tab
le II
.2).
Pris
ctoo
l Chs
iiroo
m S
naps
hot(
PC*
(Rst
opts
el a
t 197
,*
A ti
me-
sam
plin
g ob
serv
atio
n te
chni
que
to c
aptu
re 2
7ca
tego
ries
of a
ctiv
ities
at t
he e
nd o
f 5-
to 1
0-m
inut
ein
terv
als.
Sna
psho
ts a
re r
ecor
ded
at m
ultip
le ti
mes
dur
ing
the
obse
rvat
ion
perio
d.
Obs
erve
d gr
oup
size
s of
chi
ldre
n (s
mal
l, m
ediu
m, l
arge
);ob
serv
ed c
hild
-sta
ff ra
tio; n
umbe
r of
diff
eren
t gro
upin
gs;
pres
ence
of s
taff
with
eac
h gr
oup.
Oth
er d
imen
sion
s of
PC
S a
sses
s cl
assr
oom
dyn
amic
s (s
ee T
able
11.
2).
Obs
erva
tiona
l Stu
dy o
f Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Pro
gram
s (O
SE
CP
)N
atio
nal C
hild
Car
e S
taffi
ng s
tudy
(N
CC
S)
Hea
d S
tart
Fam
ily a
nd C
lass
room
Cor
rela
tes
stud
y (H
SF
CC
)C
ost,
Qua
lity,
and
Chi
ld O
utco
mes
in C
hild
Car
e C
ente
rsC
CO
)
Obs
erva
tiona
l Stu
dy o
f Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Pro
gram
s (O
SE
CP
)C
alifo
rnia
Sta
fl7C
hild
Rat
io s
tudy
(C
SC
R)
Obs
erva
tiona
l Stu
dy o
f Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Pro
gram
s (O
SE
CP
)C
alifo
rnia
Sta
fl7C
hild
Rat
io s
tudy
(C
SC
R)
282.
9
C. CLASSROOM STAFF CHARACTERISTICS
Many studies have examined the link between staff characteristics and classroom dynamics. Teachers
or caregivers with higher levels of training and education in child development often facilitate a high level
of developmentally appropriate activities and interaction in their classrooms (Love, Ryer, and Faddis
1992). In turn, children attending classrooms with more-highly trained caregivers may exhibit a higher
level of positive behavior and development (Hayes at al. 1990; Howes, Smith, and Galinsky 1995; Phillips
and Howes 1987; and Ruopp et al. 1979). For these reasons, it is important to measure these aspects of
staff characteristics. The studies discussed here used survey data to measure staff characteristics and
related these measures to other dimensions of program quality in Head Start and other center-based
settings.
1. Attributes of Staff Characteristics
The staff characteristics measured in the studies we reviewed span seven attributes: (1) educational
attainment, (2) development and training opportunities, (3) experience, (4) salaries and benefits, (5) rate
of turnover, (6) professionalism, and (7) demographics. Staff, as discussed here, includes paid and unpaid
teachers, caregivers, and aides. (Characteristics of administrators are described later under administration
and support services.) Numerous studies have shown that important links exist between staff quality and
other dimensions of program quality, particularly classroom dynamics
Educational attainment of classroom staff is reflected in bachelor's degrees or advanced degrees in
early childhood education, Child Development Associate (CDA) credentials, and otherchild development
certificates, licenses, and credentials.
Distinct from education is the level and content of further development and training that staffmembers
receive during the course of their careers in the field of early childhood care and development. Prowling
teachers with opportunities for training and continuing education is another important component of
program quality. These training opportunities can include a variety of topics, including those relating to
16
30
early childhood care and education, child development, family development, and community building.
Training approaches can involve course work and training in child care and development, in-service
training and support, and outside workshops and classes.
In addition to education and training, it is equally important to identify the nature and level of staff
experience. Experience typically includes the number of years of teaching experience, number of years
of early childhood program experience, number of years in the current program, and other types of
positions held.
Salaries and benefits, which may correlate with the level of experience, represent a distinct element
of program quality. Paying appropriate salaries and providing adequate benefits may help programs attract
well-educated and trained staff members and minimize the degree of staff turnover. The key components
of the salaries and benefits dimension include opportunities for advancement; the wage structure of the
center, and the range of benefits, including insurance, paid sick and personal days, and retirement benefits.
Maintaining low staff -turnover rates, defined by the length of employment of staff members, allows a
program to offer more continuity in the curriculum and a more stable environment for children.
Professionalism is defined in a number of ways, including the manner in which staff members are
assigned and promoted, provisions for staff input into hiring decisions, staff's philosophy and approach to
teaching, leadership ability, and professional satisfaction. These variables, many of which can be measured
through survey questions, provide valuable contextual information relating to staff characteristics. Finally,
staff demographics encompass background information such as the gender and racial makeup of staff, the
racial and ethnic match between staff and children served, and the extent to which staff members represent
the larger community in which children live.
2. Instruments for Measuring Staff Characteristics
No standardized instruments have been widely used for gathering information on caregiver, teacher,
and staff characteristics. Each of the studies we reviewed developed its own survey instruments to
17 31
interview caregivers and administrators, although there is considerable overlap in questions asked. These
instruments provide information on one or more of the seven aspects of staff characteristics: this
information has allowed researchers to examine the relationship between these characteristics and other
dimensions of program quality. Table 1L4 summarizes the types of staff characteristics that are measured
in the studies ieviewed in this report.
For the Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs (OSECP), Layzer et al. (1993) conducted
staff interviews to gather information on staff background and experience, development and training,
teaching approach and philosophy, leadership style, and demographics. The NTS included survey
questions about types of staff development and training opportunities provided by the school and those in
which at least half the kindergarten teachers participated.
The NCCS study examined child care centers in terms of their value as work environments for
teachers and staff members, to determine how that environment affects the quality of care (Whitebook et
al. 1989). The manner in which characteristics of teachers and staff members are linked to the quality of
care was also examined. NCCS developed staff interviews and director interviews to gather data on staff
demographic background, child care experience, other positions held, wages and benefits, educational
attainment, professional satisfaction, staff turnover and stability, and personal recommendations for
improving the child care profession. Howes (1992) reports that one-week test-retest reliability for the
NCCS study interview ranged from .79 to .84 across items, with an average reliability coefficient of .82.
Selected questions from this interview were also used in the PCCS survey (Kisker et al. 1991). Few
studies report reliability evidence for interview items.
The PCCS's center-based program survey instrument collected data on both individual staff members
and the overall program. Information was obtained on the educational attainment of individual classroom
staff members, years of experience in a preschool setting, types of child-related training, extent of child-
related training within the past year, and salaries and benefits. The survey also obtained data on program
18 32
TA
BL
E 1
1.4
SUM
MA
RY
OF
TH
E T
YPE
S O
F V
AR
IAB
LE
S FR
OM
MA
JOR
ST
UD
IES
USI
NG
SU
RV
EY
IN
STR
UM
EN
TS
TO
ME
ASU
RE
CL
ASS
RO
OM
ST
AFF
CH
AR
AC
TE
RIS
TIC
S,A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
ION
AN
D S
UPP
OR
T S
ER
VIC
ES,
AN
D P
AR
EN
T I
NV
OL
VE
ME
NT
OSE
CP
CSC
RN
CC
SPC
CS
NT
SC
CD
PE
SJO
I3S
FSC
HSF
CC
CQ
CO
Key
Typ
es o
f C
lass
room
Sta
ff C
hara
cter
istic
s V
aria
bles
Edu
catio
nal A
ttain
men
tX
XX
XX
XX
XX
Dev
elop
men
t and
Tra
inin
gX
XX
XX
XX
Exp
erie
nce
XX
XX
XX
X
Sala
ries
and
Ben
efits
XX
X
Tur
nove
r R
ate
XX
X
Prof
essi
onal
ism
XX
XX
Dem
ogra
phic
Cha
ract
eris
tics
XX
X
Key
Typ
es o
f A
dmin
istr
atio
n an
d Su
ppor
t Ser
vice
s V
aria
bles
Dir
ecto
r /A
dmin
istr
ator
Qua
lific
atio
nsX
X...
,c)
Staf
f C
oord
inat
ion
and
Ass
essm
ent
XX
XX
X
Prog
ram
Cha
ract
eris
tics
XX
XX
XX
Prog
ram
Sch
edul
eX
XX
Fina
ncia
l Cap
acity
XX
XX
Supp
ortiv
e Se
rvic
es f
or C
hild
ren
and
Fam
ilies
XX
XX
X
Key
Typ
es o
f Pa
rent
Inv
olve
men
t Var
iabl
es
Pare
nt P
artic
ipat
ion
in th
e C
lass
room
XX
X
Invo
lvem
ent i
n Pa
rent
Edu
catio
n A
ctiv
ities
XX
XX
XX
Invo
lvem
ent i
n Pr
ogra
m D
ecis
ion
Mak
ing
XX
X
Inte
ract
ion
with
Oth
er P
aren
tsX
XX
X
App
roac
h to
Chi
ld D
evel
opm
ent i
n th
e H
ome
XX
XX
Inte
ract
ion
with
Sta
ff a
nd C
omm
unity
Mem
bers
XX
XX
XX
DtQ
T P
nciv
AliA
ll A
DI
r
J
TABLE 11.4 (continued)
CCDP = Comprehensive Child Development Program evaluation.CQCO = Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers.CSCR = California Staff/Child Ratio study.ES = Even Start family literacy national program evaluation.FSC = Head Start Family Service Center demonstration.HSFCC = Head Start Family and Classroom Correlates study.JOBS = Job Opportunities and Basic Skills training program evaluation.NCCS = National Child Care Stalling study.NTS = National Transition Study.OSECP = Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs.PCCS = Profile of Child Care Settings study.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
35
characteristics, such as the use of specialists, staff turnover, and the length of time needed to fill teaching
vacancies. For these items, we therefore have means and frequency distributions for a nationally
representative sample of programs that includes Head Start centers.
D. ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES
The administrative skill with which early care and education programs are managed and the
supportive services they provide for children and families influence their effectiveness in meeting the needs
of children and families. Effectively run programs maintain fiscal responsibility while limiting unnecessary
costs, maintaining the quality of care and services, and tailoring services to meet the unique needs of
children and families. Through the creative use of supportive services, program directors can also provide
more comprehensive support to children and their families. To tailor services to unique needs and family
environments, programs collect and track detailed socioeconomic and demographic data on the children
and families to whom they provide services. Although evidence of relationships between administrative
variables and child outcomes is scant, all of the studies examined here have built these elements into their
data collection to varying degrees. The Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers (CQCO)
study will yield analyses of these relationships for its large multistate sample of programs. The survey
instruments and information systems discussed next measure a variety of aspects of program
administration and support services.
1. Attributes of Administration and Support Services
We examine six attributes of administration and support services: (1) qualifications of the program
director or administrator, (2) coordination with and assessment of staff, (3) program administrative
characteristics, (4) program schedule, (5) financial capacity, and (6) supportive services for children and
families. The qualifications of the director/administrator include characteristics such as educational
attainment and professional degrees held, prior experience in early child care and education, prior
2136
experience in nonprofit organization management, and relevant training courses. Coordination with and
assessment of staff includes the nature of the relationship between program management and teachers and
caregivers. Directors and managers who empower staff members, foster open channels of communication,
and cultivate relationships with other organizations in the community may develop more positive and
effective working relationships with their staff. Specifically, this area includes variables that measure
administrative leadership and philosophy; staff members' satisfaction with the working environment and
their role in it staff input into program decisions; management-staff interactions through regular meetings
and interactions; structured methods for staff evaluation and assessment; and clearly defined personnel
policies and procedures. The literature does not generally provide empirical links between administrative/
support services and child outcomes. It does, however, offer insights into the relationship between
administrative/support services and quality. We discuss these variables in terms of the program
environment assessment because we believe they represent important dimensions of overall program
quality for Head Start and other early childhood programs.
Providers with a number of different financial structures, sponsors, and standards exist in today's early
care and education market Four important administrative characteristics to consider in distinguishing one
program type from another are (1) auspice (public, nonprofit, for-profit), (2) licensing by state agencies,
(3) sponsorship (church, school), and (4) accreditation through NAEYC. The state in which the provider
is located is also an important factor, because a range of standards for early care and education providers
exists among states. In addition, an understanding of the providers' goals, philosophy, and mission can
provide important contextual information. Although program auspice and licensing are not relevant for
Head Start, sponsorship and accreditation may be.
The schedule of a child care facility can also affect children's experiences and the lives of parents.
Early childhood programs vary in their daily hours of service, days per week, and in the number of weeks
22 3 7
per year that the program is available. Higher-quality programs offer a schedule of care that better suits
the needs of the children's parents and families.
Both the financial capacity of an organization and the effectiveness of its resource management
influence overall program and classroom quality. Important components of financial capacity include (1)
total revenues and total net revenues, (2) subsidies and donations received as a percentage of total
revenues, (3) per-child cost of care, and (4) parental fees charged as a proportion of total revenues.
Volunteer assistance (both in the program office and in the classroom) also may be an important indicator
of the level and effectiveness of administrative support services. A higher level of volunteer assistance may
decrease the per-child cost of care.
The financial capacity of a program may also affect the extent to which it can provide a range of
supportive services to children and families. Supportive services may include availability of health care
services (such as immunizations, well-child checkups, and nutrition counseling), dental services, and
mental health services at the center; maintenance of health records; case management and monitoring;
referrals of children, parents, and families to other community agencies for social service needs (such as
health, nutrition, job training, public assistance, literacy training, child abuse and neglect, and substance
abuse); and the level of collaboration and information sharing with other community service providers.
2. Instruments for Measuring Administration and Support Services
Data on administration and support services typically have been gathered through interviews (both
by telephone and in person) and self-administered questionnaires. These interviews and questionnaires
have collected data that can be used to examine the relationships between administration and support
services and other dimensions of quality. By selecting appropriate items from these instruments,
researchers can obtain information in ways that promote comparability with other studies. Table 11.4
summarizes the six key types of administration and support service variables measured in the studies
examined here.
23 38
For the OSECP study, Layzer et al. (1993) collected data on program philosophy and the leadership
style of the director through staff and director interviews. In a study for the state of California, Love,
Ryer, and Faddis (1992) captured data on program goals and philosophy through interviews with program
directors. A classroom data form provided supplementary information on the number of children whose
families paid full or subsidized fees.
The NCCS study, through its analysis of the work environment of child care centers, collected
information from directors on their background and qualifications, as well as on program goals, history,
auspice, budget, and level of program subsidization (Whitebook et al. 1989). The PCCS collected
information on program administration and support services using computer-assisted telephone interviews
with child care center directors (Kisker et al. 1991). Information relevant to this area includes program
goals, fees charged to parents, subsidies received, auspice, sponsorship, accreditation and licensing, and
support services (such as health services and meals).
The Head Start Family Service Center (FSC) demonstration collected information on the
administration and support service characteristics of Head Start programs through a self-administered
project director questionnaire. Important items focused on program characteristics, staff supervision and
meetings, types of supportive services provided, case management characteristics, referral services,
collaborative relationships with other agencies, barriers to services, and revenue sources.
Finally, both the Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP) and Even Start evaluations
gathered information on coordination with other service agencies and case management strategies from
existing program records and information systems.
E. PARENT INVOLVEMENT
The nature and extent of parent involvement in early childhood programs may ultimately affect child
growth and development (Education Commission of the States 1988; and Epstein 1987). By involving
parents in their children's early care and education, providers can foster positive parental expectations for
24 39
their children's development and can help parents enhance the developmental stimulation their children
receive at home. Some evidence suggests that parent involvement experiences and the receipt of Head
Start social services improve the well-being of parents, measured in terms of depression, anxiety, and skill
in dealing with life stress (Parker, Piotrkowski, and Peay 1987). In addition, the stimulation that parents
provide in the home environment may reinforce the positive qualities of the child care setting and may have
profound effects on a child's socioemotional and cognitive development, approaches to learning, and
overall readiness for school.
1. Attributes of Parent Involvement
We examine six attributes of parent involvement (1) parent participation in the classroom, (2) parent
involvement in parent-education activities, (3) parent involvement in program decision making, (4) parent
interaction with other parents, (5) parent approaches to child development in the home, and (6) parent
interaction with staff and other community members. Parent involvement encompasses involvement by
mothers, fathers, and other family caregivers and has been a cornerstone of the Head Start program since
its inception (Ellsworth Associates 1995; Lamb Parker, Piotrkowski, Horn and Greene 1995; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services 1984). Participation in the program allows parents to relate
to their child's experiences, observe their child's interactions with other children and adults, learn from
child care professionals, serve as volunteers, and visit classrooms. Parent involvement in educational
activities designed for parents includes participation in education programs, workshops, counseling
services, and staff visits to their home.
Head Start programs also encourage parent involvement by providing a forum through which parents
can actively and directly participate in program decision making that relates to the nature and quality of
their child's care and education. This involvement includes participation on Head Start policy councils and
a variety of other program committees.
25
40
Through active involvement in the program, parents may also become better acquainted with each
other, thereby forming friendships and potentially strong, supportive relationships with each other. When
parents interact positively and develop secure relationships with each other, they may become more
involved in their child's development and more interested in the values and goals of the Head Start
program. Furthermore, the existence of supportive relationships among parents may support the
development of parenting skills, encourage greater continuity in parenting practices, and foster a sense of
community among program families.
The nature of the parent's approach to child development in the home reflects the role of parents as
the primary educators of their children. It includes a number of key components: parent-child interactions,
developmentally appropriate learning activities and materials, parenting skills and disciplinary techniques,
and parent attitudes and expectations toward children. To meet the needs of parents and families, program
staff must develop open and regular channels of communication with parents. This involves frequent
caregiver-parent interactions, teacher-parent meetings, visits to parents' homes by staff members, contact
through case management techniques, and the existence of an "open-door" visitation policy in child care
centers. Through frequent interactions, teachers and parents can discuss topics and exchange ideas relating
both to parenting and to early care and education practices and can develop positive relationships with each
other. Teachers thus can encourage parents to develop sound parenting skills and to interact with their
children at home in positive and developmentally appropriate ways. When teachers' values and practices
on child development and teaching are relatively consistent with parents' values and practices on child
development and parenting, the child's experience in the home can better reinforce his or her experiences
in the program, and vice versa.
The importance of parent involvement for Head Start program practices provides a strong rationale
for measuring aspects of it in studies of early childhood program environments. Although little empirical
data exist on the relationships between measures of parent involvement in Head Start and child outcomes,
264
a number of studies of child care centers or family child care arrangements have demonstrated that parents'
approaches and attitudes toward child-rearing have important implications for children's development.
For instance, one study of children in center-based care revealed that children whose mothers placed a
higher value on their children's prosocial skills scored higher on tests of cognitive performance and
language development (Kontos 1991). In addition, an examination of children in family child care homes
found, after controlling for the quality of care, that children from families that were more nurturing, less
restrictive, and less stressed had higher levels of competent play with adult caregivers, peers, and objects
(Howes and Stewart 1987).
2. Instruments for Measuring Parent Involvement
Studies have gathered data primarily through interviews, self-administered questionnaires, and (in
some cases) observations in the home. Table 11.4 summarizes the six key types of parent involvement
variables collected in the studies we reviewed. Two of the observation instruments (ECERS and the
Assessment Profile) have items appropriate for this dimension of quality. ECERS includes an item
measuring program provisions that involve parents and foster communication with them. The Assessment
Profile includes a number of items concerning parent-teacher communications and interactions Although
these are part of the observation instruments, instructions direct the observer to obtain this information by
interviewing teachers or directors if there is no opportunity to observe the interactions. For many research
purposes, collection of these items through surveys is most appropriate and cost-effective.
For the OSECP study Layzer et al. (1993) used a survey interview format to ask administrators and
teachers about the level of parent participation in the classroom and program and the level of staff-parent
interaction. Questions focused on parent volunteering in the classroom, education and training activities
for parents, home visiting, participation on program committees (such as staff selection, fund-raising, and
budget review), and teacher-parent conferences and communications.
2742
Questions in the PCCS study focused on the ways in which parents were involved in the program and
how they interacted with staff members (Kisker et al. 1991). Specifically, questions dealt with parent
volunteering, classroom visits, attendance at workshops or classes in the center, frequency and extent of
home visits, parent interaction with other parents, frequency and extent of teacher-parent meetings, and
parent participation in program operations through activities such as committee involvement, selection of
staff members, and input into curriculum decisions.
In the NTS, Love, Logue at aL (1992) collected information from school administrators on the extent
to which schools provided opportunities for the following elements of parent involvement: parent
volunteering in the classroom, participation in education workshops, home visits, participation on
committees, teacher-parent meetings, and at-home learning activities that support program goals.
Questions from these studies could be adapted for Head Start and other preschool programs.
The Head Start FSC demonstration hoped to find effective ways to help parents overcome problems
relating to illiteracy, substance abuse, and unemployment FSC views these three areas as often restricting
the ability of parents to become self-sufficient and to provide a nurturing and stimulating home
environment for their children. The FSC evaluation collected detailed information using a baseline and a
follow-up parent interview and questionnaires completed by project directors and case managers on these
topics: parent participation in classes and trainings, parent use of services, parent-staff interactions, case-
management-related communications and activities, and parent relationships with individuals and
organizations within the community.
Through interviews with parents and direct observations (both at the program site and in the home),
the CCDP evaluation collected information on many dimensions of parent involvement, including
participation in early childhood services, health care services, parent activities, and case management;
interactions among parents, program staff, and case managers; and parenting skills (disciplinary methods,
attitudes, and expectations). Several questions were adapted from the Home Observation for Measurement
28 4 3
of the Environment (HOME) Inventory (Caldwell and Bradley 1984) and Home Screening Questionnaire
(JFK Child Development Center 1981). Using the Child Status Interview, observers also assessed the
nature of mother-child interactions for children through age 3 (St. Pierre, Goodson, Layzer, and Bernstein
1994).
The Even Start evaluation used extensive measures of parent involvement. They focus on activities
and services offered to parents; parent-staff interaction; parents' role in their child's development in the
home; activities in the home involving books and reading; teaching and participation in child learning
activities; encouragement of child creativity; expectations and attitudes toward children; level of frustration
with child's attention demands; and involvement with community organizations, support networks, schools,
and child care providers. The parent interview borrows questions from several existing instruments to
measure the nature and quality of parent-child interactions in the home. These include the HOME
Inventory (Caldwell and Bradley 1984), the High/Scope Home Environment Scale (Deloria, Love,
Goedinghaus, Gordon, Hanvey, Hocicman, Platt, and Nauta 1974), and the Parent as a Teacher (PAAT)
Scale (Strom 1984).
Our goal is to recommend measures previously used in large-scale studies. It may be possible,
however, to supplement these measures with new instruments that contain items pertinent to attributes of
parent involvement, such as the parent's relationship with the program, that have not been as widely
measured in the major studies we reviewed. Howes, Kontos, and Galinsky (1995), for example, have
developed the Perceived Relationship Scale that asks parents to rate the perceived emotional support, trust,
general accessibility, helpfulness, and supportiveness of program staff.
F. SUMMARY
We have described a conceptual framework for measuring the quality of Head Start and other early
childhood program environments in terms of five key dimensions: (1) the dynamic nature of children's
interactions and activities in the classroom; (2) structural features of the classroom such as space and
29 44
organization; (3) staff characteristics such as education and training, experience, salaries, and turnover;
(4) administration and support services such as program director qualifications, staff coordination and
assessment, and program characteristics and services; and (5) parent involvement in the classroom and
program, parent interactions with other parents and staff, and parent approach to child development in the
home. We discussed numerous standardized instruments that have been used successfully for describing,
coding, and classifying important interactional and structural features of classroom environments. We also
discussed several large-scale studies that have developed survey instruments to interview caregivers,
administrators, and parents about various contextual aspects of program environments.
4 5 30
III. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FROM LARGE-SCALESTUDIES MEASURING EARLY CHILDHOOD
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS
Hundreds of studies have measured aspects of early childhood program environments. For future
research purpOses, however, we can learn most from studies that (1) were implemented in multiple sites
with a large sample of programs, (2) involved Head Start programs (or programs that share many of the
characteristics of Head Start), and (3) collected data on the program dimensions that we described in the
last chapter. We reviewed 11 studies that met these criteria. Appendix A contains brief summaries of
these studies, and Table D1.1 highlights these features of each study: (1) date conducted, (2) purposes of
the study, (3) types of programs studied, (4) populations the programs served, and (5) study design and
sample. In this chapter, we summarize the findings from each study that may be useful for guiding
decisions about instruments to use in future research. We present the findings and implications that pertain
to measuring the dimensions of classroom dynamics, classroom structure, staff characteristics,
administration and support services, and parent involvement.
A. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MEASURING CLASSROOM DYNAMICS
1. Summary of Findings
Six of the studies produced findings with implications for measures of classroom dynamics. The most
recent of the Head Start observational studies, the Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs
(OSECP), reached four key conclusions related to classroom dynamics. (1) the amount of adult-child
interaction was greater, and global measures of classroom quality were higher, when child-staff ratios were
lower (fewer children per staff member); (2) teachers spent more time interacting with children, teaching
children, teaching language/number concepts, and using positive techniques when they were more highly
educated; (3) teachers spent more time teaching and interacting with individual children in classrooms that
involved a majority of parents in several different types of activities; and (4) classrooms were rated higher
31 4 6
TA
BL
E 1
11.1
HIG
HL
IGH
TS
OF
LA
RG
E-S
CA
LE
ST
UD
IES
ME
ASU
RIN
G E
AR
LY
CH
ILD
HO
OD
PR
OG
RA
M E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
TS
Yea
r(s)
of
Dat
aC
olle
ctio
nM
ajor
Pur
pose
(s)
Typ
es o
f Pr
ogra
ms
Stud
ied
Popu
latio
ns S
erve
dSt
udy
Des
ign
and
Sam
ple
Des
crip
tion
Spri
ng 1
991
Fall
1990
and
Spr
ing
1991
Febr
uary
to A
ugus
t 198
8
"::
Spri
ng a
nd S
umm
er 1
993
iv
47
Obs
ervo
lort
iol S
tudy
of
loor
ly 0
1141
1too
d Pr
ogra
m i
ON
ICP)
fida
itr ti
4 to
m
To
defi
ne a
nd m
easu
re th
e qu
ality
of
earl
y ch
ildho
od p
rogr
ams;
to s
how
how
clas
sroo
ms
and
staf
f ch
arac
teri
stic
sin
flue
nce
qual
ity; t
o id
entif
y th
e w
ays
in w
hich
ove
rall
qual
ity r
elat
es to
clas
sroo
m d
ynam
ics.
Ear
ly c
hild
hood
pro
gram
s,in
clud
ing:
Hea
d St
art,
scho
ol-s
pons
ored
pro
-gr
ams,
and
oth
er c
hild
car
ece
nter
s
4-ye
ar-o
ld c
hild
ren
from
low
-inc
ome
fam
ilies
Ran
dom
sam
ple
of 1
19 c
ente
r-ba
sed
prog
ram
s, s
trat
ifie
d by
type
of
cent
er, w
as s
elec
ted
from
fiv
e si
tes;
the
site
s w
ere
chos
en to
ens
ure
geog
raph
ic a
nd r
egul
ator
y di
vers
ity a
mon
g pr
ogra
ms
(one
site
eac
hfr
om C
alif
orni
a, F
lori
da, M
ichi
gan,
New
Jer
sey,
and
Tex
as).
One
clas
sroo
m f
rom
eac
h ce
nter
-bas
ed p
rogr
am w
as r
ando
mly
sel
ecte
d fo
rth
e st
udy;
all
child
ren
and
man
y of
the
staf
f m
embe
rs in
the
clas
sroo
ms
wer
e in
clud
ed in
the
obse
rvat
iona
l ana
lysi
s.,
Af
e4
) st
udy
(tam
Ity
oram
il ra
ddlo
199
2),
co H
r rn
Iokk
000
1136
1.:
Cen
ter-
base
d ch
ild c
are
3- to
5-y
ear-
old
child
ren
Sam
ple
of 1
12 c
hild
car
e cl
assr
oom
s re
pres
entin
g 10
per
cent
of
the
clas
sroo
ms
from
sta
te-
rece
ivin
g su
bsid
ized
car
eC
alif
orni
a ag
enci
es th
at o
pera
ted
stat
e-fu
nded
chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent
fund
ed c
hild
car
e se
rvic
epr
ogra
ms.
All
clas
sroo
ms
had
volu
ntee
red
for
the
stud
y. A
ll ch
ildre
n in
agen
cies
the
clas
sroo
ms
wer
e in
clud
ed in
the
obse
rvat
iona
l ana
lysi
s.
To
dete
rmin
e th
e ef
fect
on
prog
ram
qual
ity o
f an
incr
ease
in th
e ch
ild-s
taff
ratio
fro
m 8
:1 to
eith
er 9
:1 o
r 10
:1.
To
dete
rmin
e th
e im
pact
that
the
prof
essi
onal
wor
k en
viro
nmen
t and
the
char
acte
rist
ics
of te
ache
rs a
nd s
taff
have
on
the
qual
ity o
f ch
ild c
are.
,7
,O,
To
exam
ine
the
rela
tions
hips
bet
wee
nch
ild c
are
cost
, pro
gram
adm
inis
trat
ion,
qual
ity o
f ca
re, a
nd c
hild
cog
nitiv
e an
dso
cial
-em
otio
nal d
evel
opm
ent.
BE
STC
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
"If
stio
w:
.17
hog.
row
ity.
-boo
k,
Lic
ense
d ch
ild c
are
cent
ers
070
Infa
nt, t
oddl
er, a
ndpr
esch
ool c
hild
ren
from
fam
ilies
of
all i
ncom
egr
oups
A r
ando
m s
ampl
e of
227
chi
ld c
are
cent
ers,
str
atif
ied
by th
e in
com
ele
vel o
f ch
ildre
n se
rved
and
the
prop
ortio
n op
erat
ed in
urb
an o
rsu
burb
an a
reas
, was
sel
ecte
d fr
om f
ive
met
ropo
litan
are
as (
Atla
nta,
Bos
ton,
Det
roit,
Pho
enix
, and
Sea
ttle)
; the
fiv
e ar
eas
wer
e ch
osen
on
the
basi
s of
geo
grap
hic
and
regu
lato
ry d
iver
sity
, rel
ativ
e di
stri
butio
n of
nonp
rofi
t and
for
-pro
fit c
ente
rs, a
nd s
tate
legi
slat
ive
atte
ntio
n to
chi
ldca
re s
taff
ing
issu
es. W
ithin
eac
h ce
nter
, thr
ee c
lass
room
s (o
ne e
ach
from
infa
nt, t
oddl
er, a
nd p
resc
hool
cla
ssro
oms)
wer
e ra
ndom
ly s
elec
ted;
with
in e
ach
clas
sroo
m, o
ne te
ache
r an
d on
e as
sist
ant w
ere
rand
omly
4se
lect
ed; a
nd, f
rom
one
of
the
site
s, tw
o ch
ildre
n fr
om e
ach
clas
sroo
mw
ere
rand
omly
sel
ecte
d fo
r ob
serv
atio
n."
Stat
e lic
ense
d no
npro
fit a
ndfo
r-pr
ofit
child
car
e ce
nter
sIn
fant
, tod
dler
, and
pres
choo
l chi
ldre
n fr
omfa
mili
es o
f al
l inc
ome
grou
ps
A r
ando
m s
ampl
e of
50
nonp
rofi
t and
50
for-
prof
it ch
ild c
are
cent
ers,
stra
tifie
d by
aus
pice
, was
sel
ecte
d fr
om e
ach
of f
our
stat
es (
Cal
ifor
nia,
Col
orad
o, C
onne
ctic
ut, a
nd N
orth
Car
olin
a); t
he s
tate
s w
ere
chos
en o
nth
e ba
sis
of r
egio
nal,
dem
ogra
phic
, and
pro
gram
div
ersi
ty. W
ithin
eac
hce
nter
, tw
o cl
assr
oom
s w
ere
rand
omly
sel
ecte
d fo
r ob
serv
atio
n an
d a
tota
l of
826
pres
choo
l chi
ldre
n fr
om th
e cl
assr
oom
s w
ere
obse
rved
.
4?)
TA
BL
E 1
11.1
(con
tinue
d)
Yea
r(s)
of
Dat
aC
olle
ctio
nM
ajor
Pur
pose
(s)
Typ
es o
f Pr
ogra
ms
Stud
ied
Popu
latio
ns S
erve
dSt
udy
Des
ign
and
Sam
ple
Des
crip
tion
Fall
1990
-Spr
ing
1991
and
Fall
1991
-Spr
ing
1992
Mad
Sie
rt F
inal
ly a
nd O
sman
Com
m ie
s th
tletn
nes
Sitt
4r(1
19M
) 03
4414
eL
1994
)
To
exam
ine
how
cla
ssro
om q
ualit
yaf
fect
s ch
ild d
evel
opm
ent,
cont
rolli
ngfo
r th
e ch
ild's
hom
e en
viro
nmen
t; to
dete
rmin
e ho
w te
ache
r ed
ucat
ion,
expe
rien
ce, a
nd a
ttitu
des
affe
ctcl
assr
oom
qua
lity.
Fall
1989
-Win
ter
1990
Fall
1989
-Spr
ing
1990
0 0
To
com
pile
nat
iona
l-le
vel d
ata
on th
eav
aila
bilit
y an
d ch
arac
teri
stic
s or
ear
lycu
re a
nd e
duca
tion
prog
ram
s; to
exam
ine
the
char
acte
rist
ics
of c
hild
care
pro
vide
rs a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith q
ualit
yof
car
e.
To
exam
ine
the
way
s th
at p
ublic
scho
ols
prov
ide
activ
ities
to h
elp
child
ren
tran
sitio
n to
kin
derg
arte
n an
dth
e w
ays
that
they
can
hel
p to
dev
elop
pres
choo
l-ki
nder
gart
en c
ontin
uity
.
0000
000
0000
000
Fall
1991
-Fal
l 199
4
Hea
d St
art
3- to
5-y
ear-
old
child
ren
from
low
-inc
ome
fam
ilies
A s
ampl
e of
32
Hea
d St
art c
lass
room
s, o
r m
ore
than
85
perc
ent o
f H
ead
Star
t cla
ssro
oms
in o
ne s
outh
ern
met
ropo
litan
are
a, w
ere
exam
ined
; the
met
ropo
litan
are
a in
clud
ed a
rel
ativ
ely
even
dis
trib
utio
n of
urb
an,
subu
rban
, and
rur
al c
lass
room
s. F
rom
the
part
icip
atin
g cl
assr
oom
s,fo
ur c
hild
ren
(tw
o bo
ys, t
wo
girl
s) w
ere
rand
omly
sel
ecte
d fo
r th
e st
udy.
Pra
ttle
of a
n C
ore
Set
tings
(P
CC
S)
SU
* 0.
361c
er e
t at 1
090
Form
al e
arly
car
e an
ded
ucat
ion
prog
ram
sin
clud
ing
Hea
d St
art,
publ
ic s
choo
l-ba
sed
prog
ram
s, o
ther
cen
ter-
base
d pr
ogra
ms,
and
regu
late
d ho
me-
base
dpr
ovid
ers
Kin
derg
arte
n cl
assr
oom
sw
ithin
pub
lic s
choo
ldi
stri
cts
All
child
ren
and
fam
ilies
serv
ed b
y fo
rmal
ear
lyca
re a
nd e
duca
tion
prov
ider
s
0,00
,t
A r
ando
m s
ampl
e of
2,6
72 p
rovi
ders
(in
clud
ing
2,08
9 ce
nter
-ba
sed
prog
ram
s an
d 58
3 ho
me-
base
d pr
ogra
ms)
, str
atif
ied
by ty
pe o
f pr
ovid
er,
was
sel
ecte
d fr
om a
nat
iona
lly r
epre
sent
ativ
e, r
ando
m s
ampl
e of
mor
eth
an 2
,800
cou
ntie
s; th
e fi
nal s
ampl
e of
100
cou
ntie
s w
as s
trat
ifie
d by
regi
on, m
etro
polit
an s
tatu
s, p
over
ty le
vel,
and
prop
ortio
n of
the
popu
latio
n un
der
age
5.
.pg1
.04;
tAsi
4 Lo
gue
etA
ttt9
92...
......
. ....
.....
......
......
4- to
5-y
ear-
old
child
ren,
incl
udin
g th
ose
from
low
-in
com
e fa
mili
es
A n
atio
nally
rep
rese
ntat
ive,
tand
om s
ampl
e of
1,0
03 p
ublic
sch
ool
dist
rict
s, s
trat
ifie
d by
siz
e an
d po
vert
y le
vel,
was
sel
ecte
d; h
igh-
pove
rty
dist
rict
s w
ere
over
sam
pled
. With
in e
ach
dist
rict
, up
to tw
o pu
blic
scho
ols
with
kin
derg
arte
n cl
asse
s, a
lso
stra
tifie
d by
siz
e an
d po
vert
yle
vel,
wer
e ra
ndom
ly s
elec
ted
(a to
tal o
f 1,
662
scho
ols)
. Eig
ht s
choo
lsth
at p
rim
arily
ser
ved
disa
dvan
tage
d st
uden
ts w
ere
chos
en f
or s
ite v
isits
.7
co:N
imbi
:mut
ede
i Dev
ootim
iiit P
rogr
am to
;011
/yah
oo*
of. n
erti-
et li
t PR
I
To
dete
rmin
e ho
w C
CD
P se
rvic
es f
orch
ildre
n an
d fa
mili
es im
pact
chi
ldde
velo
pmen
t and
mat
erna
l out
com
es.
49
CC
DP
proj
ects
that
off
erco
mpr
ehen
sive
ser
vice
sre
latin
g to
chi
ld c
are
and
deve
lopm
ent,
child
hea
lth,
pare
ntin
g, a
nd f
amily
func
tioni
ng
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Chi
ldre
n fr
om lo
w-i
ncom
efa
mili
es (
6 m
onth
s ol
dth
roug
h th
e ag
e of
ent
ryin
to e
lem
enta
ry s
choo
l)an
d th
eir
pare
nts.
A s
ampl
e of
21
CC
DP
proj
ects
, or
near
ly 8
8 pe
rcen
t of
the
orig
inal
CC
DP
proj
ects
, par
ticip
ated
in th
e ev
alua
tion.
Fro
m th
ese
proj
ects
,ap
prox
imat
ely
4,40
0 fa
mili
es w
ere
rand
omly
ass
igne
d ei
ther
to a
trea
tmen
t gro
up th
at r
ecei
ved
CC
DP
serv
ices
or
a co
ntro
l gro
up th
at d
idno
t. T
he f
ocus
chi
ld c
hose
n fr
om e
ach
fam
ily f
or th
e ev
alua
tion
was
betw
een
the
ages
of
6 an
d 12
mon
ths
at th
e tim
e of
CC
DP
enro
llmen
t.Fi
nal e
valu
atio
n re
sults
are
pen
ding
.
50
TA
BL
E H
I.1
(con
tinue
d)
Yea
r(s)
of
Dat
aC
olle
ctio
nM
ajor
Pur
pose
(s)
Typ
es o
f Pr
ogra
ms
Stud
ied
Popu
latio
ns S
erve
dSt
udy
Des
ign
and
Sam
ple
Des
crip
tion
..,,
How
l Sue
Phu
t, Se
rvic
e C
on*
(KS)
( A
OA
osoc
tito
inc.
190)
,' '
"s
:4:..
.....J
,
Spri
ng 1
992
-Spr
ing
1994
y
To
exam
ine
how
com
preh
ensi
vese
rvic
es w
ithin
a H
ead
Star
t pro
gram
envi
ronm
ent a
ffec
t par
ent a
nd f
amily
outc
omes
and
add
ress
the
prob
lem
s of
illite
racy
, sub
stan
ce a
buse
, and
unem
ploy
men
t; to
exp
lore
str
ateg
ies
for
colla
bora
ting
serv
ice
deliv
ery
to lo
w-
inco
me
fam
ilies
.7,
4.77
00.:.
7. 7
77re
, ,0,
07
4"P
ior
,r
Spri
ng 1
990-
Spri
ng 1
993
(Par
ts o
f fo
ur s
choo
lye
ars)
Spri
ng 1
992,
Ong
oing
Hea
d St
art F
SC d
emon
-st
ratio
n pr
ojec
ts th
at o
ffer
exte
nsiv
e se
rvic
es to
child
ren
and
fam
ilies
in th
ear
eas
of c
hild
car
e,ed
ucat
ion,
hea
lth,
pare
ntin
g, a
nd s
ocia
lse
rvic
es7
O
Chi
ldre
n fr
om lo
w-i
ncom
efa
mili
es (
prim
arily
pres
choo
lers
) an
d th
eir
pare
nts.
A s
ampl
e of
13
FSC
dem
onst
ratio
n pr
ojec
ts, r
epre
sent
ing
mor
e th
an 3
0pe
rcen
t of
the
tota
l num
ber
of F
SCs,
was
exa
min
ed. F
rom
thes
e FS
Cs,
fam
ilies
wer
e as
sign
ed e
ither
to a
Hea
d St
art t
reat
men
t gro
up th
atre
ceiv
ed F
SC s
ervi
ces
or a
con
trol
gro
up th
at r
ecei
ved
only
reg
ular
Hea
dSt
art s
ervi
ces.
Fin
al e
valu
atio
n re
sults
are
pen
ding
.
EV
Oi S
titt 1
7010
7 tit
erat
6410
0401
Oft
rcr
r4*
"rf/:,
; 4e;
I
To
asce
rtai
n ho
w in
tegr
ated
chi
ld c
are
and
educ
atio
n se
rvic
es f
or c
hild
ren
and
fam
ilies
aff
ect s
choo
l rea
dine
ss a
ndpa
rent
ing
skill
s an
d ed
ucat
ion.
To
exam
ine
how
em
ploy
men
t and
trai
ning
ser
vice
s an
d ch
ild c
are
assi
stan
ce a
ffec
t job
sta
bilit
y, e
cono
mic
self
-suf
fici
ency
, and
chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent
amon
g A
id to
Fam
ilies
with
Dep
ende
ntC
hild
ren
(AFD
C)
fam
ilies
.
Eve
n St
art f
amily
lite
racy
prog
ram
s th
at p
rovi
dese
rvic
es r
elat
ing
to e
arly
child
hood
edu
catio
n, a
dult
basi
c sk
ills
and
liter
acy,
and
pare
ntin
g ed
ucat
ion
JOB
S, a
pro
gram
for
AFD
Cre
cipi
ents
, off
ers
a va
riet
yof
em
ploy
men
t and
trai
ning
serv
ices
and
chi
ld c
are
assi
stan
ce
,r
Chi
ldre
n (a
ges
3 to
8)
from
low
-inc
ome
fam
ilies
and
thei
r pa
rent
s.
AFD
C r
ecip
ient
s an
d th
eir
child
ren
(3-
to 5
-yea
r-ol
dsin
the
child
out
com
esu
bstu
dy)
A N
atio
nal E
valu
atio
n In
form
atio
n Sy
stem
(N
ET
S) w
as d
evel
oped
topr
ovid
e on
goin
g de
scri
ptiv
e in
form
atio
n on
all
Eve
n St
art p
rogr
ams
and
mos
t Eve
n St
art f
amili
es; t
he N
ET
S al
low
s fo
r an
alys
is o
f pr
etes
t-po
stte
st d
ata.
In
an in
-dep
th s
tudy
, app
roxi
mat
ely
200
fam
ilies
fro
m f
ive
Eve
n St
art p
rogr
ams
wer
e ra
ndom
ly a
ssig
ned
eith
er to
a tr
eatm
ent
grou
p th
at r
ecei
ved
Eve
n St
art s
ervi
ces
or a
con
trol
gro
up th
at d
id n
ot.
Fina
l eva
luat
ion
resu
lts a
re p
endi
ng.
"24
02 ta
d 19
93)
App
roxi
mat
ely
55,0
00 A
FDC
rec
ipie
nts
and
appl
ican
ts f
rom
sev
en s
ites
wer
e ra
ndom
ly a
ssig
ned
eith
er to
the
hum
an c
apita
l dev
elop
men
ttr
eatm
ent g
roup
, the
labo
r fo
rce
atta
chm
ent t
reat
men
t gro
up, o
r a
cont
rol g
roup
. Fro
m th
ree
of th
e or
igin
al s
even
site
s, th
e ch
ild o
utco
mes
subs
tudy
fol
low
s ap
prox
imat
ely
3,00
0 A
FDC
par
ticip
ants
and
thei
rpr
esch
ool c
hild
ren.
Fro
m o
ne o
f th
e or
igin
al s
ites,
the
obse
rvat
iona
lsu
bstu
dy e
xam
ines
the
pare
nt-c
hild
inte
ract
ions
of
370
fam
ilies
.
51
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
52
on use of developmentally appropriate activities when teachers were more highly educated and trained.
Although the OSECP findings cannot be generalized to all early care and education programs, they are
particularly relevant to Head Start research because (1) they are based on a relatively large sample of
programs; (2) the programs included a sizable sample of Head Start classrooms; and (3) the children
served in all programs represent a population similar to that served by Head Start.
OSECP showed that global measures demonstrate adequate reliability in their internal consistency and
that they measure many facets of classroom dynamics that are important elements of effective early
childhood program practice. Scores on three of the major global measures (ECERS, Assessment Profile,
and CPI) were so highly correlated, however, that using all three provides redundant information. Another
global rating instrument, the Arnett Scale, captures important qualities of teacher affect and style,
especially "teacher responsiveness," that the other global ratings do not measure.
Micro-observational methods are useful for capturing behavior interactions that underlie the dynamic
processes of early childhood classrooms, but these methods would be prohibitively expensive to implement
in large national studies. Furthermore, all four global instruments were significantly correlated with many
of the micro-observational measures of quality, suggesting that the microdata are not essential for
understanding important early childhood classroom dynamics.
The California Staff/Child Ratio (CSCR) study reached two important conclusions relating to
classroom dynamics: (1) children spent less time uninvolved and exhibited lower levels of stress behavior,
and caregivers acted in a more attentive and encouraging manner, in classrooms with more
developmentally appropriate practices; and (2) children exhibited low levels of negative behaviors when
there was a supportive learning environment and when teachers treated children in a positive and
individualized manner. The CSCR study further demonstrates that global measures of quality (in this case,
the Assessment Profile, Arnett Scale, and CPI) can be used reliably in a large multisite study.
Furthermore, the CSCR study documented important links between classroom dynamics and other quality
35
53
BEST COPY
elements. It demonstrated that developmentally appropriate practices are important because they relate
to caregiver interaction styles and children's behavior.
The findings from the NCCS study, although not based on a representative sample of early care and
education providers, provide a wealth of information on the characteristics of center-based child care
teachers and caregivers. Several key conclusions relate to classroom dynamics: (1) teachers provided
more appropriate and sensitive caregiving when they had received more formal education and early
childhood training at the college level and when they earned higher wages and benefits; (2) teachers and
children interacted in a more positive and prosocial manner when the child-staff ratio was lower; and (3)
children who attended centers with greater staff turnover and lower levels of quality were less competent
in social and language development. Thus, important links between children's development and caregiver
behaviors and education were documented in a large-scale national study.
The Head Start Family and Classroom Correlates Outcomes (HSFCC) study reached several key
conclusions relating to classroom quality:'
Children's cognitive and pre-academic skill development was higher, controlling for thequality of a child's home environment, when children attended higher-quality classrooms.
Children from more stimulating home environments, compared with children from lessstimulating environments, benefited more from classrooms that had a high-quality curriculumin problem-solving and reasoning skills.
Children scored higher on verbal skills, information processing, and pre-academic skills whenthey attended higher-quality Head Start classrooms; however, teachers' ratings of children'sbehavioral and social skills were not associated with classroom quality.
Only nine percent of the Head Start classrooms received a mean ECERS score of 5 or better,the level that indicates "good" developmental practice according to the ECERS authors. Thiscompares with the CQCO study's finding of 14.1 percent of classrooms scoring 5 or better,and OSECP's finding that 29 percent of classrooms had scores of 5 or better.
'HSFCC analyzed total ECERS scores, so the quality measure did not distinguish between the dynamicand structural items.
536
CQCO concluded that more than half of the child care centers examined failed to meet children's
needs for learning and warm relationships Controlling for maternal education and child gender and
race/ethnicity, children displayed greater receptive language ability, higher levels of pre-mathematics and
social skills, and more positive attitudes toward themselves when they attended higher-quality preschool
classrooms. Unlike some research, CQCO found no significant differences between nonprofit and for-
profit centers in the quality of classroom dynamics
The NTS demonstrates the feasibility of conducting a large-scale mail survey of public school districts
and schools. The self-reported data provided a useful description of kindergarten classroom practices,
indicating the prevalence of developmentally inappropriate activities mixed with developmentally
appropriate practices. The NTS also demonstrates the possibility of collecting comparable preschool- and
kindergarten-level data on classroom practices using survey methods.
2. Implications for Future Research
Collectively, these studies demonstrate that it is possible to collect both global measures of classroom
dynamics and very detailed micro-observations in a large-scale, multisite national study. Obtained this
way, measures are reliable and appear to be valid in that they are related to each other and, in some cases,
to child outcomes. The findings of the studies suggest that priority in the area of classroom dynamics
should be given to measuring (1) global classroom quality, (2) instructional practices indicative of
developmentally appropriate or inappropriate activities, and (3) different types and characteristics of
caregiver behavior. We see six specific implications for measuring program environments:
1. Classroom dynamics are critical features of program environments because many of theirattributes relate to children's behavior and well-being.
2. The most widely used global measures (ECERS, Assessment Profile, and CPI) are fairlyhighly correlated with each other. Their results are not totally redundant, however, if oneexamines subscales. For example, even though Layzer et al. (1993) report high correlationsbetween total scores on the ECERS and the Assessment Profile, Abbott-Shim, Neel, andSibley's (1993) analysis of subscale scores showed that the scheduling and interacting scales
37
55
of the Assessment Profile are not highly correlated with ECERS subscale scores and may bemeasuring different aspects of classroom dynamics.
3. One of the global measures (the Arnett Scale) is among the easiest to use and capturesaspects of teacher-child interactions that the other global measures do not. Ratings of teacherbehaviors such as attentiveness, encouragement, warmth, and detachment are associated withpositive child well-being.
4. Micro-observational methods that capture teacher-child interactions in greater detail haveintuitive appeal but would be prohibitively expensive to conduct in very large studies.Furthermore, the global measures have been shown to be substantially correlated with scoresfrom the micro-observations.
5. Self-reported data on classroom practices may be a useful supplement to observation-basedmeasures (but cannot substitute for direct observations).
6. The increasingly wide use of a core set of global measures of classroom dynamics ensuresthat researchers will be able to make comparisons with other studies.
B. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MEASURING CLASSROOM STRUCTURE
1. Summary of Findings
The measures used in OSECP encompass many important aspects of classroom structure, as defined
by the NAEYC guidelines. As with their measures of classroom dynamics, these instruments demonstrate
adequate internal consistency. OSECP reached two key conclusions relating to classroom structure: (1)
the amount of adult interaction with children was greater and global measures of classroom dynamics
indicated higher quality when child-staff ratios were lower (fewer children per staff member); and (2)
compared with child care and Chapter 1 classrooms in the study, Head Start classrooms had much lower
child-staff ratios and were less likely to have only a single adult supervising children for a substantial
period of time. Furthermore, compared with other program types, Head Start classrooms were highly rated
and had more consistent levels of quality, measured by such indicators as physical space, equipment, and
safety. The findings suggest that classroom structure variables, particularly the child-staff ratio, are equally
important in Head Start as in child care and Chapter 1 programs for 4-year-olds. While OSECP did not
measure child outcomes, it did demonstrate essentially the same degree of association between the
56 38
classroom structure and classroom dynamic variables as in other studies that have found associations with
child outcomes (for example, the CQCO and NCCS studies).
As with OSECP, the CSCR study showed how classroom structure is associated with the quality of
classroom dynamics First, children were more likely to spend time in large groups and be less involved
in activities when child-staff ratios were higher. Second, classrooms were rated as more developmentally
appropriate, in terms of instructional activities and caregiver-child interactions, when they achieved higher
ratings on structural dimensions such as safety and health, as measured by the Assessment Profile. Thus,
CSCR documented moderately strong associations between classroom structure and program dynamics.
CSCR also showed that ratios and class sizes reported by programs are somewhat larger than those
calculated by the trained observers using the PCS.
The NCCS study reached two key conclusions relating to classroom structure: (1) teachers and
children interacted in a more beneficial manner when the child-staff ratio was lower; and (2) higher-quality
centers, in terms of classroom dynamics, were more likely to have lower child-staff ratios.
The PCCS study is unique because it developed a statistical profile of the population of early care and
education providers in the United States. It reached several main conclusions relating to classroom
structure: (1) group sizes and child-staff ratios increased from the late 1970s to 1990; (2) in 1990, average
group sizes and child-staff ratios were in the middle to upper end of the recommended ranges of group
sizes and ratios; and (3) in group sizes and ratios, the quality of care provided by programs serving low-
income children is comparable to the quality of care provided by other programs. The NTS demonstrated
an important correlate of structural variables: child-staff ratios were lower when the poverty level of the
school was higher.
2. Implications for Future Research
Although variables describing classroom dynamics (discussed earlier) are most likely to affect child
development and well-being, some studies find elements of classroom structure to be significantly
39
57
correlated with dynamic variables. Thus, it is important for research studies to include, at a minimum, data
on child-staff ratios in classrooms, as well as data on group sizes. The extent to which a classroom
environment promotes children's safety and health is also a key element of quality that should be
considered for inclusion in the data collection design. Structural features (such as child-staff ratios) are
relatively easy lo measure using survey instruments. Studies such as the PCCS and NTS demonstrate that
computer-assisted telephone interviews and self-report mail surveys, respectively, can provide this
information. The data from these sources, however, will differ from the data obtained by classroom
observation. If resources permit, it would be best to obtain this information by observation, sampling
across multiple time periods.
C. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MEASURING CLASSROOM STAFFCHARACTERISTICS, ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES, ANDPARENT INVOLVEMENT
1. Summary of Findings on Staff Characteristics
OSECP examined the influence of staff characteristics on the quality of care and found that teachers
who had higher levels of education (as measured by the level of degree or certification) spent more time
interacting with children, teaching children, and teaching language/number concepts. They also used more
developmentally appropriate activities. In addition, children in classrooms led by more-highly educated
and trained teachers spent more time engaged in activities with goals. In Head Start classrooms, however,
teacher education lacked the same degree of influence. In Head Start classrooms, teachers tended to rely
more on training opportunities (including CDA certification) compared with teachers in other classrooms.
The finding that the "level of teacher education" and the "level of specialized education or training in early
childhood education" were highly related indicates that it may be possible for teachers to realize some of
the benefits of higher education by attending the types of preservice and in-service training that Head Start
provides, including CDA certification. The CSCR study found that classrooms whose caregivers had more
training in early childhood education were rated higher on developmentally appropriate practices.
5 8 40
In addition to examining the relationship between staff characteristics and quality of care, the NCCS
reached four conclusions related to staff characteristics: (1) child care teachers generally have attained high
levels of formal education but earn relatively low wages (as a reflection of this, staff turnover rates nearly
tripled from 1977 to 1988); (2) teachers tend to provide higher-quality care and services to children, as
measured through "appropriate and sensitive caregiving" on the Arnett Scale, when they have had more
formal education, received more early childhood training at the college level, and earn higher wages and
benefits; (3) children were more competent in social and language development when they attended centers
with lower staff turnover, and (4) higher-quality centers paid staff better, and also had a better adult work
environment, lower teacher turnover, and a more-highly educated and trained staff
The PCCS reached several key conclusions that relate to teachers, caregivers, and other staff
members: (1) approximately half of center-based teachers have graduated from college, and nearly all have
received child-related training (teachers in public-school-based programs are more likely to have a college
degree); (2) the annual rate of teacher turnover is 25 percent; (3) given their level of education, preschool
teachers earn very low wages, although teachers in public-school-based programs earn significantly higher
wages than teachers in other types of programs; and (4) the racial/ethnic composition of the staff generally
reflects the race/ethnicity of the children in care. The HSFCC study is one of the few studies to find only
a weak relationship between the level of teachers' educational attainment and classroom quality, as
measured by the mean ECERS score.
The CQCO study demonstrated that many staff characteristics are important correlates of classroom
quality. After examining educational level, experience, relevant training, wages and benefits, turnover (or
staff tenure), and leadership ability, the CQCO study concluded that the quality of children's classroom
experience (measured by the ECERS) was higher when staff members had a college education (bachelor's
degree) and staff ntinover was less frequent Wages, education, and training all distinguished poor-quality
centers from mediocre-quality ones. Staff working in nonprofit centers, compared with those in for-profit
41
53
centers, typically earned higher wages; among nonprofit centers, church-affiliated centers typically had
staff with less training and education and paid lower wages.
2. Summary of Findings on Administration and Support Services
The NCCS study demonstrated that (1) higher-quality classrooms shared the following attributes
related to their program's location, administration, and support services: better adult work environments,
nonprofit status, accreditation through the NAEYC, and location in states with higher standards for quality;
(2) compared to their for-profit counterparts, nonprofit centers (non-church-affiliated) received a smaller
percentage of revenues from parent fees and a larger percentage from government funds and served a
higher percentage of subsidized children; (3) charitable funding represented approximately seven percent
of child care center revenues; (4) nonprofit centers (both those that did and did not receive government
funds) provided more developmentally appropriate care than other center types; (5) parents paid higher
fees in centers with more appropriate and higher-quality caregiving; and (6) low-income children generally
attended higher-quality centers than middle-income children, largely because of subsidies that helped
defray the costs.
The PCCS generated a number of important insights into the administrative and support service
characteristics of child care providers: (1) approximately 13 percent of all center-based programs offer
physical examinations, and approximately 40 percent offer testing for cognitive and social development;
(2) nearly 75 percent of all Head Start programs provide physical examinations, and nearly all Head Start
programs offer cognitive developmental testing; (3) approximately 85 percent of center-based providers
charge some level of parent fees; (4) parent fees as a proportion of total revenues have increased since the
late 1970s, while government funds as a proportion of total revenues have declined; and (5) among
providers that charge parental fees, higher-quality programs charge higher fees.
The CQCO study examined a variety of important characteristics related to the financial management
and administrative characteristics of child care centers. It controlled for the following variables in its
42
analysis of the costs and quality of center-based care: (1) center auspice (nonprofit, for-profit), (2)
sponsorship (public, independent, church-affiliated), (3) state-licensing standards, (4) accreditation
standards, (5) regional variation in standards, (6) composition of revenues and expenses, (7) labor and
facilities costs (including forgone wages of child care staff), (8) cash and in-kind contributions, (9) profit
margins, (10) fee schedules, (11) administrative leadership and experience, (12) age mix of children
served, and (13) proportion of subsidized children served.
The CQCO study found state licensing standards to be important; states with higher licensing
standards had a smaller proportion of poor-quality centers. Centers required to meet higher standards
typically paid higher wages, provided better benefits, and offered a higher quality of care than centers that
did not meet regulatory standards. In addition, accredited centers typically provided a higher level of
quality care.
High-quality centers shared the following characteristics: higher costs and revenue per "child hour,"
more donated resources and outside funding, and lower parent fees as a proportion of total revenues. In
their CQCO study, the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team (1995) estimated that centers
would need to spend an additional 10 percent to improve their quality of care from "mediocre" to "good."
They also examined the level of the center administrator's experience and found that, all else held constant,
an increase in experience is associated with higher quality care:
3. Summary of Findings on Parent Involvement
The PCCS produced several findings concerning the extent of parents' involvement in the early care
and education programs of their children. It found that (1) almost three-quarters of the centers reported
regular teacher-parent meetings; (2) approximately one-quarter of the centers have staff members who
make home visits to meet with parents; and (3) more than one-quarter of all centers reported that parents
serve as classroom volunteers, while close to 90 percent of Head Start programs reported that parents serve
as classroom volunteers. Parent involvement depends on the nature of the activity. Nearly half of the
43 BEST COPY AVAILABLE1
centers reported that parents participate in fund-raising activities, whereas fewer than one-quarter reported
parent involvement in budget review. Only 16 percent reported parent participation in staff selection, but
approximately two-fifths reported parent attendance at workshops and classes. Head Start programs were
much more likely than other center-based programs to involve parents in these ways.
The OSECP concluded that, when the level of parent involvement was high, overall classroom quality
was higher, and teachers were more involved with children and gave them more individual attention. High
parent involvement indicated that there was a 75 percent participation rate in at least three of the following
parent activities: volunteering in the classroom, volunteering on field trips, making materials, sharing skills,
attending parent/teacher conferences, attending social events, and recruiting families for the program. A
greater percentage of Head Start classrooms (compared with the other types of classrooms) involved a
greater percentage of parents in each of the seven parent activities, and a smaller percentage of Head Start
classrooms had activities in which no parents participated. The study acknowledged that in-person
observation of children and parents would enhance the understanding of how parent involvement affects
child development.
The CCDP evaluation found that CCDP mothers (compared with control group mothers) were (1) less
likely to report attitudes that can be linked to child abuse and neglect; (2) more likely to have higher
expectations for their child's success in school; (3) more likely to report spending time with their child and
to report that resident fathers spent more time in daily activities with the child; and (4) more likely to act
in a responsive, sensitive, and developmentally appropriate manner toward the child.
4. Implications for Future Research
Many of the attributes measured in these three dimensions of the program environment are important
in Head Start program operations. Furthermore, the measurement of staff characteristics, administration
and support services, and parent involvement can be readily accomplished using telephone or in-person
interviews. Thus, data on these aspects of Head Start children's program environments would be a
02 44
valuable part of future research. The findings of these studies suggest that consideration should be given
to measuring the following attributes:
Level of educational attainment of classroom teachers and aides
Extent of staff specialized training in child development and early childhood education
Turnover rates among teaching staff (both teachers and aides)
Wages or salaries of classroom staff
Racial/ethnic composition of classroom staff in relation to the race/ethnicity of the children
Parent participation in the program for children
Parent involvement in parent education activities
Parent involvement in program decision making
Supportive relationships among parents
Parent-teacher relationships
Relationship of teacher and parent values to teaching and parenting practices
Qualifications of program director/administrator
Staff satisfaction with the work environment and input into program decisions
Administrative characteristics such as sponsorship, accreditation, and licensing
Some administrative variables found to be linked to classroom quality in studies of child care and non-
Head Start preschool programs are not applicable to Head Start studies. For example, parent fees and
child subsidies are not relevant variables, since Head Start parents pay no fees. Some aspects ofprogram
costs (such as staff wages) may be important, however. Studies should measure aspects of parent
involvement. Although its association with the quality of classroom dynamics or structure is weak, parent
involvement is central to the goals of Head Start and many other early childhood programs. It is important
45
33
to learn, using a larger and more representative sample than in the OSECP, whether different types of
parent involvement are related to (1) program quality, and (2) children's development and learning.
D. SUMMARY
The findings from the Head Start and early childhood studies reviewed here suggest that future
research studies should give priority to measuring certain aspects of classroom and program environments.
In terms of classroom dynamics, it is particularly important to measure global classroom quality, caregiver
behavior, and instructional practices indicative of developmental appropriateness. In terms of classroom
structure, priority should be given to measuring group sizes and child-staff ratios in classrooms. Finally,
in terms of staff characteristics, administration and support services, and parent involvement, we suggest
a number of variables that would be important to measure and would serve as valuable additions to future
research efforts.
S4
46
IV. RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING EARLYCHILDHOOD PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTS
In this paper, we selectively reviewed research on five dimensions commonly used to describe features
of early childhood programs that may influence the development and well-being of the enrolled children:
1. Classroom dynamics
2. Classroom structure
3. Classroom staff characteristics
4. Administration and support services
5. Parent involvement
We selected studies that focused on Head Start programs, or programs serving a similar low-income
population, and concentrated on describing instruments that either have been used in Head Start programs
or clearly would be appropriate for them. The studies we reviewed in Chapters II and DI are part of a large
body of research that now exists on measuring program environments and an increasingly large number
of studies of program quality. The findings and measurement procedures of these studies have important
implications for decisions about measuring program environments in future Head Start and other early
childhood program research: what to measure, and how to conduct the measurements.
These studies demonstrate that (1) it is important to measure children's program environments
because variations in a number of quality dimensions are associated with important aspects of children's
development and well-being, (2) multiple dimensions are required to assess adequately the full spectrum
of program quality, and (3) methodologies for assessing the quality of program environments now exist
that can be implemented economically on a large scale.
Although we could use hundreds of variables to describe fully children's experiences in early
childhood programs, research demonstrates that researchers can obtain a reliable and valid portrait of the
47
G5
-most important experiences by using a few carefully chosen measures. As Scarr et al. (1994, p. 132) have
noted, research "does not require exhaustive inventories but reliable and valid measures of those aspects
of quality that can be assessed with efficient and inexpensive measurement" This conclusion is supported
by the relatively strong correlations observed among many of the global measures and between the global
and micro-observation measures. The conclusion of Scarr et al., however, applies to the limited set of
variables they studied: the ECERS (or the infant-toddler version), the Assessment Profile, child-staff ratio,
group size, teacher training, teacher education, highest wage, and staff turnover. To address the large
number of program issues related to Head Start programs, variables representing all five dimensions
reviewed here would have to be included.
We summarize our recommendations in Table 1V.1 and discuss them in the following sections. All
of the observational data can be collected by trained observers spending a single three- to four-hour
observation period in each classroom. All of the observation instruments we recommend have been used
in multisite studies in which large numbers of observers have been trained to meet reliability standards.
The items recommended for inclusion in parent, teacher, and director interviews have been used in large-
scale telephone and/or in-person interview formats with national samples, as summarized in Chapters II
and DI.
A. CLASSROOM DYNAMICS
By selecting two or three widely used global measures, researchers will be able to assess key
attributes of classroom dynamics that are commonly used to indicate quality programming for children and
for which evidence suggests at least an association (if not a causal relationship) with children's
development and well-being. We recommend the ECERS because it is the most widely usedmeasure of
global quality and yields scores that have been correlated with child outcomes in many studies. As
suggested by Scarr et al. (1994), researchers could consider selecting a subset of ECERS items, focusing
on two dimensions that Whitebook et al. (1989) found important: (1) developmentally appropriate activity,
66 48
TABLE IV. 1
RECOMMENDED EARLY CHILDHOOD CLASSROOM AND PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTVARIABLES AND MEASURES
Variables Measures
Classroom Dynamics
Global QualityDevelopmentally appropriate activityAppropriate caregiving
Instructional PracticesDevelopmentally appropriateDevelopmentally inappropriate
Caregiver BehaviorWarm/responsive (or attentive and encouraging)Harsh/punitive (or harsh and critical)Detached
Child-Staff Ratio
Group or Classroom Size
Subscales of Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale
Adaptation of Classroom Practices Inventory (modified asDevelopmental Practices Inventory)
Subscales of Arnett Scale of Caregiver Behavior
Classroom Struart,
Safety and HealthSafety of classroomSafety of supplies and materialsTeacher preparation to respond to accidents and
emergenciesEncouragement of personal hygieneTeacher responsibility for basic health care
, 0 0
Observational counts
Observational counts
Subscale of Assessment Profile
Classroom Staff Characteristics0 00 J 0 0 7 0 0 .0.0.0.0,0, A A 0 ,000 00
Staff Education and TrainingDescription of degrees receivedReceipt of Child Development Associate credentialsTypes of training classes and workshops in child
development and other relevant areas
Staff Turnover RateNumber of lead and other teachers who have left the
program in past 12 months as a proportion of allteachers
Wages and SalariesWages/salaries of classroom staff members by roleVolunteer classroom staff
Racial/Ethnic Composition of Classroom Staff andVolunteers in Relation to Racial/Ethnic Composition ofChildren
49
Teacher interview
Program director interview
Program director interview
Program director interview
G7
V, V V 00AV 0,00,,e,e;
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
TABLE IV. I (continued)
Variables Measures
0. h.' NJ 0000Admialstration sod Support Services
Qualifications of Program Director/AdministratorDegrees receivedYears of experienceTypes of prior experienceRelevant training courses
Work EnvironmentStaff satisfaction with different working environment
characteristicsInvolvement by teachers and staff in program
management and program decision making
Administrative CharacteristicsSponsor of programAccreditation (for example, by NAEYC)
ScheduleHours per dayDays per weekWeeks per veer
Parent Participation in ClassroomVolunteering in classroomClassroom visiting
Program director interview
Teacher interview and program director interview
Program director interview
Program director interview
ees
Parent Involvement
Parent Involvement in Parent Education ActivitiesParticipation in workshops and programsHome visits
Parent Involvement in Decision MakingParticipation on program committees
Parent Approach to Child Development in the HomeParent-child interactionsDevelopmentally appropriate activities and materialsParenting skills and disciplinary styleParent attitudes toward and expectations of children
Supportive Relationships Among Parents
Staff-Parent InteractionTeacher-parent meetings and interactionsRelationship of teacher values and practices to parent
values and practices
000se ,
e... eeee
Parent interview and teacher interview
Parent interview
Parent interview and program director interview
Parent interview
Parent interview
SY.
Parent interview and teacher interviewParent interview, teacher interview, and program director
interview
G8
50
and (2) appropriate caregiving. We also recommend using an adaptation of the CPI. This will enable
researchers to differentiate the aspects of classroom dynamics that constitute curriculum activities. We
believe the CPI requires further adaptations (beyond those used in the OSECP and CSCR studies) for two
reasons: (1) the early childhood field currently is reconsidering the concept of developmentally appropriate
practices (Mallory and New 1994), and (2) observers must be able to make reliable ratings during
observation periods of reasonable length (for example, between two hours and one-half day per classroom).
Using the Arnett Scale, researchers will be able to measure aspects of teacher behaviors (in interaction with
children) that are not included in the other global measures. The important Amett scales are (1) "warmth/
responsiveness" (or "attentive and encouraging"), (2) "harsh/punitive" (or "harsh and critical"), and
(3) "detached."
B. CLASSROOM STRUCTURE
At no additional cost, while completing these global ratings, observers can also count the number of
adults and children at several points during the observation period so that they can calculate group sizes
and child-staff ratios. If more details on children's groupings and activities are desired, researchers could
create a simplified version of the PCS. We also recommend using a subscale from the Assessment Profile
to measure classroom features relating to safety and health. This instrument requires a relatively small
amount of time to train observers, provides objective scores on safety and health characteristics, and allows
researchers to identify programs that score below an acceptable standard of quality in safety and health.
C. STAFF CHARACTERISTICS
We recommend gathering data on staff characteristics by including questions on this dimension in both
the teacher and program director interviews. The studies discussed in Chapters II and DI included
questions researchers can draw from to measure a variety of staff characteristics. We recommend the
collection of information on staff and teacher education and training (including types of relevant degrees
51Fp9
received and the receipt of CDA credentials and other relevant training). To collect the most current and
accurate information, we suggest collecting these data through teacher interviews, instead of through
program director interviews.
In a program director interview, we recommend asking a number of questions that will permit studies
to report (1) staff turnover rate (or the percentage of teachers who have left the program in the past year),
(2) average wages and/or salaries of teachers and staff and the percentage of classroom staff who are
volunteers (adjusting for time spent in the classroom), and (3) racial/ethnic composition of classroom staff
in relation to the racial/ethnic composition of the children that the program serves. Since both staff
turnover and staff wages/salaries are key indicators of higher-quality programs, they are important
variables to measure. Average and median figures will permit researchers to assess the distribution of
wages and salaries among paid staff, and a count of the number of volunteers will allow assessments of
the extent to which a program relies on volunteer labor.
D. ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES
As with classroom staff characteristics, we recommend using survey interview questions, primarily
in a program director interview, to gather information on key facets of administration and support services.
As we discussed in Chapters II and III, previous studies have developed questions for measuring program
administration and support services. First, we suggest that information on the qualifications of theprogram
director or administrator be collected by directly asking the directors themselves in the interviews. The
most meaningful qualifications include (1) number and type of degrees received; (2) years of experience
in the early childhood field and related fields; (3) types and years of other, prior experience; and (4)
relevant training courses taken.
To examine the climate of the program environment and the involvement of staff in the overall
program, we suggest measuring two key aspects of the work environment: (1) staff's relative satisfaction
with a variety of aspects of the working environment, and (2) the level of involvement by teachers and other
7052
staff members in program management and decision making. We advise including questions on these
aspects of the work environment in both the teacher and program director interviews to account for any
discrepancies between the different viewpoints. For program administrative characteristics, we feel that
the most important variables to measure are the sponsorship of the program and types of accreditation that
it has received (for example, by NAEYC). These variables capture variation among different programs
and can be easily collected through a program director interview. Data on the program's schedule also can
be obtained through a program director interview.
E. PARENT INVOLVEMENT
Active involvement by parents in their children's early care and education, both in the home and
through participation in the daily program, helps to reinforce the efforts of teachers and staff members.
As with the classroom staff and administration and support service characteristics discussed earlier, an
extensive portrayal of parent involvement in Head Start and other programs can be collected using parent,
teacher, and program director interviews. As we discussed in Chapters II and DI, previous studies have
developed questions for measuring different types of parent involvement in Head Start. We recommend
measuring a number of key elements of parent participation. First, questions on both the parent and teacher
interviews can be used to collect information on the frequency with which parents visit and volunteer in
the classroom. Similarly, we recommend collecting more detailed information on participation in
educational activities designed for parents, including workshops, programs, and home visits. Such
information can be most effectively gathered by querying parents, since they represent the source of the
most accurate information on attendance in, and satisfaction with, the activities. In addition to involvement
in parent education activities, it is important to understand the level of parent involvement in program
decision making. Therefore, we suggest asking both parents and program directors about the level of
parent participation on program committees.
53 71BEST COPY AVAILABLE
To complement the data on parent participation in the classroom and program, we recommend
collecting data on the quality of parents' approach to child development in the home, their relationships
with other parents, and their interactions with teachers and staff members. We recommend that a set of
questions be asked of parents to better understand their relationship to and interactions with their child in
the home. Such questions should measure (1) the level and types of parent-child interactions, (2) the use
of developmentally appropriate activities and materials in the home, (3) parenting skills and disciplinary
style, and (4) parent attitudes and expectations of children. To collect information on parent relationships
with other parents, we suggest asking parents a question that characterizes the supportive nature of their
relationships with other parents. To gather data on staff-parent interaction, we suggest asking both parents
and teachers about the types and frequency of their meetings and interactions. Finally, we recommend that
a question be asked of parents, teachers, and the program director about their perceptions of the association
between teacher and parent values and practices. By asking such a question in all three interviews,
researchers can measure the variance in perspectives and gauge the level of consistency between teacher
values and practices regarding child development and teaching, as well as parent values and practices
regarding child development and parenting.
A' tiA' 4.,
54
REFERENCES
Abbott-Shim, Martha, John R Neel, and Annette Sibley. "Development and Validation of the AssessmentProfile: Research Version." Poster session for the Society for Research in Child Development,Biennial Meeting, New Orleans, March 1993.
Abbott-Shim, "Martha, and Annette Sibley. Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs:Preschool, Infant, School-Age. Atlanta, GA: Quality Assist, 1987.
Abbott-Shim, Martha, Annette Sibley, and John Neel. Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs:Research Manual. Atlanta, GA: Quality Assist, 1992.
Abt Associates Inc. "Evaluation of the Head Start Family Service Center Demonstration Projects: OMBClearance Package." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992.
Arnett, J. "Caregivers in Day-Care Centers: Does Training Matter?" Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, vol. 10, 1989, pp. 541-552.
Bredekamp, Sue. Developmental6 Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Childrenfrom Birth Through Age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of YoungChildren, 1987.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela K. Klebanov, and Naomi Sealand. "Do NeighborhoodsInfluence Child and Adolescent Development?" American Journal of Sociology, vol. 99, 1993, pp.353-395.
Bryant, Donna M., Margaret Burchinal, Lisa B. Lau, and Joseph J. Sparling. "Family and ClassroomCorrelates of Head Start Children's Developmental Outcomes." Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, vol. 9, 1994, pp. 289-309.
Burts, D.C., C.H. Hart, R. Charlesworth, and L. Kirk "A Comparison of Frequencies of Stress BehaviorsObserved in Kindergarten Children in Classrooms with Developmentally Appropriate versusDevelopmentally Inappropriate Practices." Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 5, 1990, pp.407-423.
Caldwell, B.M., and RH. Bradley. Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME).Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1984.
Child Trends, Inc. "The JOBS Child Outcomes Study: Overview Briefing." Washington, DC: ChildTrends, 1993.
Cochran, Moncrieff, and David Riley. "The Social Networks of Six-Year-Olds: Context, Content, andConsequence." In Extending Families: The Social Networks of Parents and Their Children, editedby Moncrieff Cochran, Mary Lamer, David Riley, Lars Gtmnarsscm, and Charles Henderson, Jr. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
55
Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. "Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child CareCenters." Public report. Denver: University of Colorado at Denver, April 1995.
Deloria, D., J.M. Love, L. Goedinghaus, S. Gordon, R. Hanvey, E. Hockman, J. Platt, and M. Nauta. TheNational Home Start Evaluation: Interim Report IV: Summative Evaluation Results. Ypsilanti, MI:High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, May 1974.
Education Commission of the States. "Drawing in the Family: Family Involvement in the Schools."Denver: Education Commission of the States, August 1988.
Ellsworth Associates, Inc. "The Development of Head Start Performance Measures." Vienna, VA:Ellsworth Associates, Inc., June 1995.
Epstein, Joyce L. "Parent Involvement: What Research Says to Administrators." Education and UrbanSociety, vol. 19, no. 2, 1987, pp. 119-136.
Ferrar, Heidi M. Places for Growing: How to Improve Your Child Care Center. Princeton, NJ:Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1996.
Goodson, B.D. "Developmental Practices Inventory (Description of Preschool Practices)." Boston, MA:Abt Associates, 1990.
Harms, Thelma. "Preschool and Child Care Setting Characteristics." Paper prepared for the NationalCenter for Education Statistics. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, November 1992.
Harms, Thelma, and Richard M. Clifford. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York:Teachers College Press, 1980.
Hayes, C., J. Palmer, and M. Zaslow. Who Cares for America 's Children? Child Care Policy for the1990s. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
Howes, Carollee. "Preschool Experiences." Paper prepared for the National Center for EducationStatistics. Los Angeles: University of California'at Los Angeles, September 1992.
Howes, Carollee. "Can the Age of Entry into Child Care and the Quality of Child Care Predict Adjustmentin Kindergarten?" Developmental Psychology, vol. 26, 1990, pp. 292-303.
Howes, Carollee. "Relations Between Early Child Care and Schooling." Developmental Psychology, vol.24, 1988, pp. 53-57.
Howes, Carollee, Deborah A. Phillips, and Marcie Whitebook. "Thresholds of Quality. Implications forthe Social Development of Children in Center-Based Child Care." Child Development, vol. 63, 1992,pp. 449-460.
Howes, Carolee, Susan Kontos, and Ellen Galinsky "Perceived Relationships Scale." Manuscript inpreparation. New York: Families and Work Institute, 1995.
7456
Howes, Caro llee, Ellen Smith, and Ellen Galinsky. "The Florida Child Care Quality Improvement Study:Interim Report." New York: Families and Work Institute, 1995.
Howes, Caro llee, and P. Stewart "Child's Play with Adults, Toys, and Peers: An Examination of Familyand Child Care Influences." Developmental Psychology, vol. 23, 1987, pp. 423-430.
Hyson, M.C., K. Hirsh-Pasek, and L. Rescorla. "The Classroom Practices Inventory: An ObservationInstrument Based on NAEYC 's Guidelines for Developmentally Appropriate Practices for 4- and5-Year-Old Children." Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 5, 1990, pp. 475-494.
Hyson, M.C., K Hirsh-Pasek, and L. Rescorla. "Academic Environments in Early Childhood: Challengeor Pressure?" Final report submitted to the Spencer Foundation, 1989.
Jarvis, Carolyn. "Take Two Giant Steps: Continuity from Prekindergarten to Kindergarten in New YorkCity Public Schools." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, 1989.
JFK Child Development Center. "The Home Screening Questionnaire." Denver: Denver DevelopmentalMaterials, Inc., 1981.
Kisker, Ellen E., Sandra L. Hofferth, Deborah A. Phillips, and Elizabeth Farquhar. "A Profile of ChildCare Settings: Early Education and Care in 1990: Volumes 1 and 2." Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, 1991.
Kontos, S. "Child Care Quality, Family Background, and Children's Development." Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, vol. 6, 1991, pp. 249-262.
Lamb Parker, F., C.S. Piotrkowski, W. Horn, and S. Greene. "The Challenge for Head Start: RealizingIts Vision as a Two-Generation Program. In Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology: TwoGeneration Programs for Families in Poverty, Volume 9, edited by I. Sigel and S. Smith. NewJersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1995, pp. 135-159.
Laosa, Luis M. "Ethnic, Socioeconomic, and Home Language Influences Upon Early, Performance onMeasures of Abilities." Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 76, 1984, pp. 1178-1198.
Layzer, Jean I., Barbara D. Goodson, and Marc Moss. Observational Study of Early ChildhoodPrograms, Final Report Volume I: Life in Preschool. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1993.
Love, John M., Mary Ellin Logue, James V. Trudeau, and Katherine Thayer. "Transitions to Kindergartenin American Schools: Final Report of the National Transition Study." Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, 1992.
Love, John M., Paul Ryer, and Bonnie Faddis. "Caring Environments: Program Quality in California'sPublicly Funded Child Development Programs: Report on the Legislatively Mandated 1990-91Staff/Child Ratio Study." Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, 1992.
57 75
Mallory, Bruce C., and Rebecca S. New. Diversity and Developmentally Appropriate Practices. NewYork: Teachers College Press, 1994.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation and Child Trends, Inc. "Job Opportunities and BasicSkills Training: Wave 1 Surveys (JOBS)." Washington, DC, and New York: MPRC 1992.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation and Child Trends, Inc. "Job Opportunities and BasicSkills Training: Wave 2 Surveys (JOBS)." Washington, DC and New York: MDRC, 1993.
Marcon, Rebecca "Early Learning and Early Identification Follow-Up Study: Transition from the Earlyto the Later Childhood Grades, 1990-93." Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools,March 1994.
Parker, F.L., C.S. Piotrkowski, and L. Peay. "Head Start as a Social Support for Mothers: ThePsychological Benefits of Involvement" American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 57, 1987, pp.220-233.
Phillips, Deborah A. Quality in Child Care: What Does Research Tell Us? Washington, DC: NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children, 1987.
Phillips, Deborah A., and Carollee Howes. "Indicators of Quality in Child Care: Review of Research."In Quality in Child Care: What Does Research Tell Us? edited by Deborah A. Phillips.Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1987.
Powell, Douglas It Families and Early Childhood Programs. Washington, DC: National Associationfor the Education of Young Children, 1989.
Ruopp, Richard It, Jeffrey Travers, Frederic Glantz, and Craig Coelen. "Children at the Center: FinalResults of the National Day Care Study." Cambridge, MA: Abt Books, 1979.
Scan, Sandra, Marlene Eisenberg, and Kirby Deater-Deckard "Measurement of Quality in Child CareCenters." Early Childhood Research Quarterly, vol. 9, 1994, pp. 131-151.
Scott-Jones, Diane. "Family Influences on Cognitive Development and School Achievement." Reviewof Research in Education, vol. 11, 1984, pp. 259-304.
Seppanen, Patricia S., Ken W. Godin, Jeffrey L. Metzger, Martha Bronson, and Donald J. Cichon."Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs, Final Report, Volume 2: Chapter 1-Funded EarlyChildhood Programs." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.
St Pierre, Robert, Barbara Goodson, Jean Layzer, and Lawrence Bernstein. "National Impact Evaluationof the Comprehensive Child Development Program: Interim Report." Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.
St Pierre, Robert, Janet Swartz, Stephen Murray, Dennis Deck, and Phil Nickel. "National Evaluation ofthe Even Start Family Literacy Program: Report on Effectiveness." Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, 1993.
658
Strom, RD. Parent as a Teacher Inventory Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.,1984.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Head Start Bureau. "Project Head Start Statistical FactSheet." Washington, DC: DHHS, February 1995.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Head Start Bureau. "Head Start Program PerformanceStandards (45-CFR 1304)." Publication no. (ACF) 92-31131. Washington, DC: DHHS, November1984.
West, Jerry, Elvira Germino Hausken, and Mary Collins. "Profile of Preschool Children's Child Care andEarly Education Program Participation." National Center for Education Statistics, Statistical AnalysisReport, February 1993.
Whitebook, Marcy, Carollee Howes, and Deborah Phillips. "Who Cares? Child Care Teachers and theQuality of Care in America: Final Report National Child Care Staffing Study." Berkeley, CA: ChildCare Employee Project, 1989.
59 77
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF SELECTED STUDIES OF HEAD STARTAND OTHER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTS
78BEST COPY AVAILABLE
1. Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs (OSECP)
The OSECP (Layzer et al. 1993) examined Head Start and other center-based programs that serve
low-income 4-year-old children. The study was designed to (1) define and measure the quality of early
childhood programs, (2) determine the ways in which classrooms and staff members influence quality, and
(3) identify the.ways in which overall quality relates to classroom dynamics. A total of 119 early childhood
programs were randomly selected from five sites for the study. The five sites were chosen to ensure a level
of geographic and regulatory diversity among programs. Observers spent one week in each classroom
during spring 1991 observing and coding the program environment, including classroom dynamics. The
OSECP used all of the observation instruments discussed in this paper (the ECERS, Assessment Profile,
Arnett Scale, CPI, and PCS). In addition, Layzer et al. developed and used the Abt Adult-Focused
Observation, a micro-observation technique, to characterize classroom interactions in more detail.
2. California Staff /Child Ratio (CSCR) Study
The CSCR study examined quality in early care and education programs in California by determining
whether or not the 8:1 child-staff ratio standard could be increased to either 9:1 or 10:1 without diminishing
program quality (Love, Ryer, and Faddis 1992)) Observations were conducted in 112 classrooms
operated by state-funded child care service agencies that served subsidized 3- to 5-year-old children.
These classrooms were randomly assigned to a new ratio of 8:1, 9:1, or 10:1. Observers spent four half
days in each classroom collecting data during fall 1990 and spring 1991.
3. National Child Care Staffing (NCCS) Study
Influenced by the high rate of staff turnover and the notion that well-trained and consistent staff
promote quality child care, the NCCS study examined work environments for center-based teachers and
'Although the CSCR study used the term "staff/child ratio," we use the term "child-staff ratio" in thispaper to be consistent with more common usage.
63
79
staff members to determine how work environment affects the quality of care (Whitebook et al. 1989).
In terms of classroom dynamics, the study sought to examine (1) the relationship among characteristics
of teachers and staff members, features of the work environment, and measures of the quality of child care
provided; and (2) the impacts, if any, that standards, accreditation status, auspice, and types of families
served have on the quality of care provided. The study used a random sample of 227 child care centers
in five metropolitan areas to examine staffing issues in child care centers. The centers served children of
different ages and from different family income levels. Data were collected primarily through classroom
observations and staff interviews between February and August 1988. The study used two of the
instruments discussed earlier (the ECERS and the Arnett Scale).
4. Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers (CQCO) Study
The recently released CQCO study examined the relationship between child care costs, the quality
of care, and child development (Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team 1995). The study looked
at a series of issues involving early care and education: (1) how market competition affects the cost and
quality of care; (2) how regulations, standards, and program characteristics influence the cost and quality'
of care; (3) how the dimensions of the classroom and program environment either improve or diminish the
quality of care; and (4) how different aspects of the quality of care influence children's cognitive and
social-emotional development. Using a random sample, stratified by both auspice and state-licensing
standards, Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team 1995 selected a total of 50 nonprofit and 50
for-profit centers per state in California, Colorado, Connecticut, and North Carolina for the study. From
each center, two classrooms were randomly selected and a total of 826 children were observed in the
classroom setting. Observations were conducted during spring 1993 and child assessments in summer
1993. While the findings cannot be generalized to the entire population of providers in the United States,
the centers seem to reflect the national population of licensed centers offering full-time care to infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers.
L064
5. Head Start Family and Classroom Correlates Outcomes (HSFCC) Study
The HSFCC study examined 145 Head Start children in 32 classrooms to investigate (1) how
classroom quality affects child development outcomes, specifically controlling for the level of
developmental stimulation that a child receives in the home environment; and (2) how teacher education,
experience, and attitudes relate to classroom quality (Bryant, Burchinal, Lau, and Spar ling 1994). More
than 85 percent of Head Start classrooms in one southern metropolitan area agreed to participate in the
study. The sampling frame included a relatively even distribution of urban, suburban, and rural
classrooms. Four children from each classroom, two boys and two girls, were randomly chosen to
participate in the study, and nearly 70 percent of those contacted agreed to participate. Classroom
observations were conducted during the 1990-1991 and the 1991-1992 school years to collect information
on classroom dynamics, among other variables.
6. Profile of Child Care Settings (PCCS) Study
The Department of Education commissioned the PCCS study to collect descriptive information on the
population and characteristics of formal early care and education programs (Kisker et al. 1991).
Information was obtained through computer-assisted telephone interviews with a nationally representative
sample of child care center directors and regulated home-based providers of early care and education
programs. The PCCS was designed to (1) collect national data on the availability and characteristics of
early care and education options available to parents, and (2) examine the characteristics of early care and
education settings that have been associated with child care quality. The sample of 2,672 programs
included Head Start, regulated home-based, public-school-based, and other center-based programs. The
interviews were conducted during late 1989 and early 1990.
BEST COPY
65
7. National Transition Study (NTS)
Through a combination of surveys and site visits, the NTS investigated how public schools help
children make the transition to kindergarten and how they can help to develop preschool-kindergarten
continuity (Love, Logue et al. 1992). A stratified random sample of 1,003 public school districts
containing kindergartens was selected. High-poverty-level districts and districts with large enrollments
were oversampled. Up to two schools with kindergarten classes were then randomly sampled from each
district, resulting in a total sample of 1,662 schools. Self-report mail surveys were conducted with both
the districts and the schools between November 1989 and March 1990; site visits were conducted during
spring 1990 to eight schools serving primarily disadvantaged students.
8. Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP) Evaluation
The Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) commissioned a national five-year
impact evaluation of the CCDP. More than 30 CCDP projects, located across the country, provide a wide
set of comprehensive services (including early child care and developmental services) for low-income
families Case managers help to coordinate the provision of services (including comprehensive social
services for infants and young children to meet developmental needs, as well as services to help parents
develop effective parenting skills and achieve economic and social self-sufficiency) from different
providers within a community. Continuous assistance and services are provided until the children reach
elementary school. The evaluation, which includes 21 of the original 24 CCDP projects, randomly
assigned a total of 4,400 project families to either the CCDP treatment group or a control group. Data for
the impact evaluation were collected from fall 1991 through fall 1994. The two-year interim report focused
on how the CCDP affects child development and maternal outcomes, such as economic self-sufficiency,
life management skills, and psychological and physical status (St. Pierre et al. 1994).
E266
9. Head Start Family Service Center (FSC) Demonstration
The FSC demonstration projects serve primarily low-income children and their families and provide
a set of comprehensive services in- education, health, parent involvement, and social services (Abt
Associates 1992). The Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF) sponsored the
demonstration to learn about ways in which Head Start programs address the interrelated problems of
illiteracy, substance abuse, and unemployment. Head Start families in 13 FSCs (which represented more
than 30 percent of the total number of FSCs) were assigned to either a treatment group or a control group.
Random assignment and interviewing were implemented between spring 1992 and spring 1994.
The demonstration will ultimately be evaluated in terms of a variety of outcomes that describe the
program's impact on children and families, including their economic and social behaviors and progress,
service utilization, and relationship to the community.
10. Even Start Family Literacy Program Evaluation
The Even Start family literacy programs serve children and families by providing a set of services that
help parents to support the educational development of their children. Even Start projects currently serve
more than 10,000 families across the country and are designed to provide a comprehensive and integrated
set of services relating to three areas: (1) early childhood education, (2) adult basic skills and literacy, and
(3) parenting education. The Department of Education is sponsoring the national evaluation of the Even
Start family literacy programs to determine the impact of Even Start on outcomes relating to early
childhood, adult, and parenting education (St. Pierre, Swartz, Murray, Deck, and Nickel 1993). For the
in-depth study, five Even Start projects all implemented a random assignment process by assigning
potential participants to either the Even Start treatment group or a control group. The study covered parts
of four school years from 1990 to 1993.
67 6 3
11. Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) Training Program Evaluation
The JOBS training program created under the Family Support Act of 1988 intends to help AFDC
recipients increase their educational attainment and job training and, in so doing, increase their
employment, earnings, and economic self-sufficiency. JOBS requires nearly all AFDC adults to participate
and finances employment and training services, as well as child care assistance. The longitudinal JOBS
evaluation follows approximately 55,000 AFDC recipients and applicants from seven sites who have been
randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) the human capital development treatment group, (2) the
labor force attachment treatmentgroup, or (3) the control group. The evaluation is examining how JOBS
services and child care assistance affect parents and their children (Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation and Child Trends, Inc. 1992; and 1993). Data collection began in spring 1992 and will
continue, to some degree, through 1996. Two smaller studies are embedded within the larger JOBS
evaluation: (1) the child outcomes substudy, and (2) the JOBS observational substudy. The child outcomes
substudy is following approximately 3,000 families in three of the seven sites and examining the effects
of the JOBS intervention on children's cognitive development, social competence, adjustment, and health
and safety. The observational substudy involves videotaping mother-child interactions in approximately
370 families.
Information on mothers' child care arrangements is being gathered through parent interviews in the
child outcomes substudy. Parents are being asked to assess several aspects of their child's care
arrangement, including the type of arrangement, changes in the arrangement, cost of the care, level of
subsidization, group size, and staff characteristics. Parents are also assessing the educational attainment
and child-related training of their child's caregiver. These variables are being used in the JOBS evaluation
and the child outcomes substudy to determine, among other things, how child outcomes differ for children
with differing child care arrangements.
8 4
68
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTIONS OF OBSERVATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
85BEST COPY AVAI
EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENT RATING SCALE (ECERS)
Developer/Date: T. Harms and R.M. Clifford (1980)
Description:
Purpose:
Administrationand Training:
Scoring:
37-item, seven-point rating scale on the quality of the classroom, organized interms of personal-care routines of children; furnishings and display for children;language and reasoning experiences; fine and gross motor activities; creativeactivities; social development; and adult needs.
Each item is scored 1 to 7, "Inadequate" to "Excellent," with descriptionsprovided for ranks 1, 3, 5, 7.
To provide extensive descriptive information on the classroom and to makecomplex judgments on the quality of the environment. Highest scores areawarded on the basis of multiple components: caregiver behavior, use ofmaterials, types of materials, and arrangement of activities and materials.
Items and definitions of ranks are generated from research, performance indicatorsof quality day care and early childhood programs, and input from practitioners.
Ratings are based on two to three hours of observation of a classroom. Observersmay also need to obtain information from schedules and teachers to complete thescale.
Developers state that the scale can be used by persons with a "practicalacquaintance with early childhood settings and materials." Training materialsavailable include Audio-Visual Kit, Viewer's Guide, Training Workbook.Training recommendations include two practice observations of at least two hourseach in a classroom.
Scores are computed by adding ranks (1 to 7) for items in each subscale. A totalscore is obtained by adding scores for all 37 items. Total score ranges from 37 to259.
RelevantEnvironments: Preschool classrooms for children ages 3 to 6.
7186
PsychometricInformation:
Reliability:
1. Inter-rater reliability by class: in three tests, correlations were .90, .79, and .88(approximately 20 classrooms were examined).
2. Inter-rater reliability by item: on 25 classrooms, rank order correlation on itemwas .93.
3. Internal consistency (Cronbach alphas) from the Observational Study of EarlyChildhood Programs (Layzer et al. 1993)
Total score (37 items) = .92
Subscores:Personal care (5) = .64Furnishings (5) = .72Language (4) = .87Motor activities (6) = .78Creative activities (7) = .73Social development (6) = .74Adult needs (4) = .70
4. Factor analysis from the National Child Care Staffing study (Whitebook et al.1989) examined two components, one relating to appropriate caregiving, theother to developmentally appropriate activity.
Appropriate caregiving (52 percent of the variance)
Factor loadings:Greetings/departure = .63Meals /snacks = .67Nap/rest = .63Diapering/toileting = .57Understanding language = .79Using language = .83Reasoning = .77Informal language = .78Supervisionfine motor activities = .80Supervisiongross motor activities = .68Music/movement activities = .60Schedule of creative activities = .71Supervision of creative activities = .70Free play = .78Group time = .72Tone of interactions = .79
72 8
Examples ofPrevious Use:
Developmentally appropriate activities (48 percent of the variance)
Factor loadings:Furnishings for learning = .71Furnishings for relaxation = .70Room arrangement = .85Fine motor activities = .73Art activities = .74Block activities = .78Sand and water activities = .68Dramatic play = .66Space to be alone = .63Cultural awareness activities = .51
Validity:
1. Face validity: Items were reviewed and rated by day care experts; 78 percentof ratings indicated items were highly important
2. Concurrent validity: ECERS rating of 18 classrooms correlated .74 withindependent ratings by experts.
Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs (Layzer et al. 1993)National Child Care Staffing study (Whitebook et al. 1989)Head Start Family and Classroom Correlates study (Bryant et al. 1994)Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers(Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team 1995)
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
873
8
ASSESSMENT PROFILE FOR EARLY CHILDHOODPROGRAMS: RESEARCH MANUAL
(ASSESSMENT PROFILE)
Developer/Date: M. Abbott-Shim, A. Sibley, and J. Neel (1992)
Description: The Assessment Profile is a structured observation guide designed to assist inself-assessment to improve the quality of early childhood programs. The researchversion includes 87 criteria organized into five scales:
Purpose:
Administrationand Training:
Learning environment (17 criteria)Scheduling (15 criteria)Curriculum (22 criteria)Interacting (15 criteria)Individualizing (18 criteria)
The criteria, or items, represent observable procedures, behaviors, and recordsthat exemplify a set of standards for classroom practices. Criteria are scoreddichotomously as either "yes" or "no."
To determine whether program characteristics indicative of quality are present.
Information to clarify observations, documentation, and procedures is obtainedfrom three sources: (1) observation, (2) review of documentation, and (3) staffreports or teacher interviews. Training time is estimated to be approximately 10hours. One observer can collect data for three classrooms in one day. The manualis available with instructions for administering the Assessment Profile.
Scoring: In coding, each of the 87 criteria on the checklist is coded as Yes/No. In scoring,the number of criteria scored as "Yes" are totaled for each scale.
RelevantEnvironments: The Assessment Profile is intended for assessment of early childhood programs.
Versions are available for use with infant classrooms (for children from birth toage 2) and school-age classrooms (for children ages 5 to 10 who attend anotherschool and participate in before- and after-school care).
8974
PsychometricInformation:
Examples ofPrevious Use:
Reliability:
1. Internal consistency (Cronbach alphas) are reported in the Research Manual:
Subscores:
Learning environment = .87Scheduling = .79Curriculum = .87Interacting = .98Individualizing = .97
Validity:
Authors present criterion related validity with the Early Childhood EnvironmentRating Scale total scores of .64 to .74 in recent studies.
Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs (Layzer et al. 1993)'California Staff/Child Ratio study (Love, Ryer, and Faddis 1992)'
'Note: Used an earlier version: Abbott-Shim and Sibley (1987).
75
ARNETT SCALE OF CAREGIVER BEHAVIOR (ARNETT SCALE)
Developer/Date: J. Arnett (1989)
Description: Rating scale of caregiver behavior consisting of 26 items organized under fiveareas:
1. Positive relationships2. Punitiveness3. Detachment4. Permissiveness5. Prosocial interaction
Purpose: To rate the emotional tone, discipline style, and responsiveness of teachers andcaregivers in a classroom. The items focus on the emotional tone andresponsiveness of the caregiver's interactions with children. The scale does notaddress issues of curriculum or other classroom management issues (such asgrouping or flow of activities).
Administrationand Training:
Scoring:
Coding was based on a day of observation of a classroom in the National ChildCare Staffing study (Whitebook et al. 1989). The scale was coded several timesduring the day (morning, late morning, afternoon) after a specified period ofobservation.
Total score computed by summing ranks (1 to 4) across 26 items. Ratings oneach item range from 1 = "Not at all characteristic of the caregiver" to 4 = "Verycharacteristic of the caregiver."
RelevantEnvironments: Early childhood classrooms.
PsychometricInformation:
Reliability:
1. Internal consistency (Cronbach alphas) from the Observational Study of EarlyChildhood Programs (Layzer et al. 1993)
76 91
Examples ofPrevious Use:
Warmth/responsiveness rating (10) = .91Harshness rating (7) = .90.
2. Factor analysis from the Observational Study of Early Childhood Programsidentified Tour factors that, combined, accounted for 60 percent of thevariance:
Positive, warm/responsive behavior (38 percent)Harsh, punitive behavior (12 percent)Detachment (6 percent)Firm, controlling behavior (5 percent)
3. In the National Child Care Staffing study (Whitebook et al. 1989), factoranalysis showed three factors that accounted for 60 percent of the variance: (1)sensitivity, (2) detachment, and (3) harshness. In the California Staff/ChildRatio study (Love, Ryer, and Faddis 1992), factor analysis showed four factorsthat accounted for 60 percent of the variance: (1) attentive and encouraging,(2) harsh and critical, (3) detached, and (4) controlling.
Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs (Layzer et al. 1993)California Staff/Child Ratio Study (Love, Ryer and Faddis 1992)National Child Care Staffing Study (Whitebook et al. 1989)Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers (Cost, Quality, and
Child Outcomes Study Team 1995)
7792. BEST COPY AVAILABLE
CLASSROOM PRACTICES INVENTORY (CPI)
Developer/Date: Layzer et al. (1993) adaptation of the Classroom Practices Inventory (Hyson,Hirsh-Pasek, and Rescorla 1990), also referred to as the Developmental PracticesInventory.
Description: 30-item rating scale assessing the curricular emphasis of early childhoodprograms:
Purpose:
Administrationand Training:
15 items describe "developmentally appropriate" practices15 items describe "developmentally inappropriate" practices
The first 20 items are the 10 appropriate and 10 inappropriate items from theoriginal CPL Ten new items, also taken from the NAEYC guidelines, were addedby Goodson (1990). Six emotional-climate items from the original CPI are notincluded in the Goodson adaptation.
The rating scale is based on NAEYC's guidelines for DevelopmentallyAppropriate Practices (1987) for 4- and 5-year-olds. The guidelines suggestclearly contrasting classroom practices, which were the basis for CPI items.
To classify classroom and curriculum practices, teacher behaviors, children'sactivities, and teacher-child interactions are rated as developmentally appropriateor inappropriate. Developmentally appropriate practices emphasize directexperiences, concrete materials, child-initiated activity, social interaction, andadult warmth.
Ratings based on several hours of direct observation.
In the Academic Environments study (Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, and Rescorla 1989),10 programs were visited twice within two weeks by observers with training andexperience in early childhood. In addition, 48 day care settings were visited bystudents in early childhood courses; each program was observed for two and a halfhours.
Training of student observers consisted of reviewing complete NAEYCguidelines, reviewing the items, and doing practice classroom observations.
78 93
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Scoring: The score is based on a five-point scale for 30 items. Ratings on each item rangefrom 1 = "Not at all like this" to 5 = "Very much like this." The total score isproduced by summing item ratings (with negative items reversed). The possiblerange of scores is 30 to 150, with higher scores indicating more developmentallyappropriate practice.
RelevantEnvironments: Early childhood programs for 4- and 5-year-olds.
PsychometricInformation: 26-item CPI used in 207 observations of 58 programs, including a range of
settings (Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, and Rescorla 1990).
Reliability:
1. Internal consistency (Cronbach alphas)
Appropriate program items (10) = .92Inappropriate program items (10) = .93Total program items (20) = .96Emotional climate (6) = .88Total appropriateness (26) = .96
2. Intercorrelations among items: all intercorrelations were highly significant.Appropriate and inappropriate program items correlated r = -.82. Emotionalclimate correlated with program focus, r = .81.
3. Factor analysis: four-factor solution, with first factor accounting for 53 percentof the variance. Results suggest that "developmental appropriateness" asconceptualized by the CPI may be viewed as a single factor.
4. Interobserver reliability: based on observations of 10 programs, exactinterobserver agreement (to the same scale point) averaged 64 percent.Agreement within 1 scale point was 98 percent. Total CPI scores correlated.86 across pairs of raters.
Validity:
Concurrent validity: CPI scores were related to programs' community reputationsas academic or play-oriented and unstructured and to the self-reported educationalattitudes of the program teachers.
79
Examples ofPrevious Use: Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs (Layzer et al. 1993)
California Staff/Child Ratio study (Love, Ryer, and Faddis 1992)Study of Academic Environments in Early Childhood
(Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek, and Rescorla 1989 and 1990)
80
tti 5
PRESCHOOL CLASSROOM SNAPSHOT (PCS)
Developer/Date: Ruopp et al. 1979; adapted by Layzer et al. (1993) and Love, Ryer, and Faddis(1992).
Description: Records a relatively static picture of the distribution of adults and children withinactivities at a particular point in time. The snapshot records (1) activitiesoccurring (27 categories, including administrative, concrete/manipulative,symbolic, and active play), (2) child grouping patterns (small, medium, largegroups), (3) frequency of activities, (4) adult interaction with groups, (5) teacherand aide responsibilities, and (6) child independence.
Purpose:
Administrationand Training:
To obtain detailed information on how children are grouped in a classroom, howthe adults are distributed with respect to groupings of children, and the activitieschildren are engaged in.
The activity categories include activities in which a preschool class might beroutinely engaged during an ordinal), day.
Snapshot is completed at the beginning of each five minutes of observation of thecaregiver. A snapshot is coded four times an hour, just before the caregiver-childinteraction.
Scoring: Snapshots of a classroom can provide multiple scores:
Overall frequency of particular activitiesDistribution of children in small, medium, or large groupsDistribution of adults
RelevantEnvironments: Preschool classrooms.
PsychometricInformation: None available; however, in the Observational Study of Early Childhood
Programs, Layzer et al. found that the mean frequencies of individual activitiesand groupings calculated for the first full day of snapshot observation were notsignificantly different from the mean frequencies calculated for a full five days ofsnapshot observations.
81 96 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Examples ofPrevious Use: Observational Study of Early Childhood Programs (Layzer et al. 1993)
California Staff/Child Ratio study (Love, Ryer, and Faddis 1992)Project Giant Step Evaluation (Jarvis 1989)
c 82
9 7
Number
94-01 (July)
94-02 (July)
94-03 (July)
94-04 (July)
94-05 (July)
94-06 (July)
94-07 (Nov.)
95-01 (Jan.)
95-02 (Jan.)
95-03 (Jan.)
95-04 (Jan.)
95-05 (Jan.)
Listing of NCES Working Papers to Date
Please contact Ruth R. Harris at (202) 219-1831if you are interested in any of the following papers
Title
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Papers Presentedat Meetings of the American Statistical Association
Generalized Variance Estimate for Schools andStaffing Survey (SASS)
1991 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) ReinterviewResponse Variance Report
The Accuracy of Teachers' Self-reports on theirPostsecondary Education: Teacher Transcript Study,Schools and Staffing Survey
Cost-of-Education Differentials Across the States
Six Papers on Teachers from the 1990-91 Schools andStaffing Survey and Other Related Surveys
Data Comparability and Public Policy: New Interest inPublic Library Data Papers Presented at Meetings ofthe American Statistical Association
Schools and Staffing Survey: 1994 Papers Presented atthe 1994 Meeting of the American StatisticalAssociation
QED Estimates of the 1990-91 Schools and StaffingSurvey: Deriving and Comparing QED SchoolEstimates with CCD Estimates
Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990-91 SASS Cross-Questionnaire Analysis
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988:Second Follow-up Questionnaire Content Areas andResearch Issues
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988:Conducting Trend Analyses of NLS-72, HS&B, andNEL S : 88 Seniors
98
Contact
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
William Fowler
Dan Kasprzyk
Carrol Kindel
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Jeffrey Owings
Jeffrey Owings
Number
95-06 (Jan.)
95-07 (Jan.)
95-08 (Feb.)
95-09 (Feb.)
95-10 (Feb.)
95-11 (Mar.)
95-12 (Mar.)
95-13 (Mar.)
95-14 (Mar.)
95-15 (Apr.)
95-16 (Apr.)
95-17 (May)
95-18 (Nov.)
96-01 (Jan.)
Listing of NCES Working Papers to DateContinued
Title
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988:Conducting Cross-Cohort Comparisons Using HS&B,NAEP, and NELS:88 Academic Transcript Data
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988:Conducting Trend Analyses HS&B and NELS:88Sophomore Cohort Dropouts
CCD Adjustment to the 1990-91 SASS: A Comparisonof Estimates
The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study(TLVS)
The Results of the 1991-92 Teacher Follow-up Survey(TFS) Reinterview and Extensive Reconciliation
Measuring Instruction, Curriculum Content, andInstructional Resources: The Status of Recent Work
Rural Education Data User's Guide
Assessing Students with Disabilities and LimitedEnglish Proficiency
Empirical Evaluation of Social, Psychological, &Educational Construct Variables Used in NCESSurveys
Classroom Instructional Processes: A Review ofExisting Measurement Approaches and TheirApplicability for the Teacher Follow-up Survey
Intersurvey Consistency in NCES Private SchoolSurveys
Estimates of Expenditures for Private K-12 Schools
An Agenda for Research on Teachers and Schools:Revisiting NCES' Schools and Staffing Survey
Methodological Issues in the Study of Teachers'Careers: Critical Features of a Truly LongitudinalStudy
S9
Contact
Jeffrey Owings
Jeffrey Owings
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Sharon Bobbitt &John Ralph
Samuel Peng
James Houser
Samuel Peng
Sharon Bobbitt
Steven Kaufman
StephenBroughman
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Number
96-02 (Feb.)
96-03 (Feb.)
96-04 (Feb.)
96-05 (Feb.)
96-06 (Mar.)
96-07 (Mar.)
96-08 (Apr.)
96-09 (Apr.)
96-10 (Apr.)
96-11 (June)
96-12 (June)
96-13 (June)
96-14 (June)
Listing of NCES Working Papers to DateContinued
Title
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS): 1995 Selectedpapers presented at the 1995 Meeting of the AmericanStatistical Association
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988(NELS:88) Research Framework and Issues
Census Mapping Project/School District Data Book
Cognitive Research on the Teacher Listing Form forthe Schools and Staffing Survey
The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for 1998-99:Design Recommendations to Inform Broad EducationPolicy
Should SASS Measure Instructional Processes andTeacher Effectiveness?
How Accurate are Teacher Judgments of Students'Academic Performance?
Making Data Relevant for Policy Discussions:Redesigning the School Administrator Questionnairefor the 1998-99 SASS
1998-99 Schools and Staffing Survey: Issues Related toSurvey Depth
Towards an Organizational Database on America'sSchools: A Proposal for the Future of SASS, withcomments on School Reform, Governance, and Finance
Predictors of Retention, Transfer, and Attrition ofSpecial and General Education Teachers: Data from the1989 Teacher Followup Survey
Estimation of Response Bias in the NHES:95 AdultEducation Survey
The 1995 National Household Education Survey:Reinterview Results for the Adult EducationComponent
1100
Contact
Dan Kasprzyk
Jeffrey Owings
Tai Phan
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Jerry West
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Steven Kaufman
Steven Kaufman
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Number
96-15 (June)
96-16 (June)
96-17 (July)
96-18 (Aug.)
96-19 (Oct.)
96-20 (Oct.)
96-21 (Oct.)
96-22 (Oct.)
96-23 (Oct.)
96-24 (Oct.)
96-25 (Oct.)
96-26 (Nov.)
96-27 (Nov.)
Listing of NCES Working Papers to Date--Continued
Title
Nested Structures: District-Level Data in the Schoolsand Staffing Survey
Strategies for Collecting Finance Data from PrivateSchools
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 1996 FieldTest Methodology Report
Assessment of Social Competence, AdaptiveBehaviors, and Approaches to Learning with YoungChildren
Assessment and Analysis of School-LevelExpenditures
1991 National Household Education Survey(NHES:91) Questionnaires: Screener, Early ChildhoodEducation, and Adult Education
1993 National Household Education Survey(NHES:93) Questionnaires: Screener, SchoolReadiness, and School Safety and Discipline
1995 National Household Education Survey(NHES:95) Questionnaires: Screener, Early ChildhoodProgram Participation, and Adult Education
Linking Student Data to SASS: Why, When, How
National Assessments of Teacher Quality
Measures of Inservice Professional Development:Suggested Items for the 1998-1999 Schools andStaffing Survey
Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools
Intersurvey Consistency in NCES Private SchoolSurveys for 1993-94
101
Contact
Dan Kasprzyk
StephenBroughman
Andrew G.Malizio
Jerry West
William Fowler
Kathryn Chandler
Kathryn Chandler
Kathryn Chandler
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Steven Kaufman
Steven Kaufman
Number
96-28 (Nov.)
96-29 (Nov.)
96-30 (Dec.)
97-01 (Feb.)
97-02 (Feb.)
97-03 (Feb.)
97-04 (Feb.)
97-05 (Feb.)
97-06 (Feb.)
97-07 (Mar.)
97-08 (Mar.)
Listing of NCES Working Papers to DateContinued
Title
Student Learning, Teaching Quality, and ProfessionalDevelopment: Theoretical Linkages, CurrentMeasurement, and Recommendations for Future DataCollection
Undercoverage Bias in Estimates of Characteristics ofAdults and 0- to 2-Year-Olds in the 1995 NationalHousehold Education Survey (NHES:95)
Comparison of Estimates from the 1995 NationalHousehold Education Survey (NHES:95)
Selected Papers on Education Surveys: PapersPresented at the 1996 Meeting of the AmericanStatistical Association
Telephone Coverage Bias and Recorded Interviews inthe 1993 National Household Education Survey(NHES:93)
1991 and 1995 National Household Education SurveyQuestionnaires: NHES:91 Screener, NHES:91 AdultEducation, NHES:95 Basic Screener, and NHES:95Adult Education
Design, Data Collection, Monitoring, InterviewAdministration Time, and Data Editing in the 1993National Household Education Survey (NHES:93)
Unit and Item Response, Weighting, and ImputationProcedures in the 1993 National Household EducationSurvey (NHES:93)
Unit and Item Response, Weighting, and ImputationProcedures in the 1995 National Household EducationSurvey (NHES:95)
The Determinants of Per-Pupil Expenditures in PrivateElementary and Secondary Schools: An ExploratoryAnalysis
Design, Data Collection, Interview Timing, and DataEditing in the 1995 National Household EducationSurvey
IO2
Contact
Mary Rollefson
Kathryn Chandler
Kathryn Chandler
Dan Kasprzyk
Kathryn Chandler
Kathryn Chandler
Kathryn Chandler
Kathryn Chandler
Kathryn Chandler
StephenBrougiunan
Kathryn Chandler
Number
97-09 (Apr.)
97-10 (Apr.)
97-11 (Apr.)
97-12 (Apr.)
97-13 (Apr.)
97-14 (Apr.)
97-15 (May)
97-16 (May)
97-17 (May)
97-18 (June)
97-19 (June)
97-20 (June)
97-21 (June)
97-22 (July)
Listing of NCES Working Papers to DateContinued
Title
Status of Data on Crime and Violence in Schools: FinalReport
Report of Cognitive Research on the Public and PrivateSchool Teacher Questionnaires for the Schools andStaffing Survey 1993-94 School Year
International Comparisons of Inservice ProfessionalDevelopment
Measuring School Reform: Recommendations forFuture SASS Data Collection
Improving Data Quality in NCES: Database-to-ReportProcess
Optimal Choice of Periodicities for the Schools andStaffing Survey: Modeling and Analysis
Customer Service Survey: Common Core of DataCoordinators
International Education Expenditure ComparabilityStudy: Final Report, Volume I
International Education Expenditure ComparabilityStudy: Final Report, Volume II, Quantitative Analysisof Expenditure Comparability
Improving the Mail Return Rates of SASS Surveys: AReview of the Literature
National Household Education Survey of 1995: AdultEducation Course Coding Manual
National Household Education Survey of 1995: AdultEducation Course Code Merge Files User's Guide
Statistics for Policymakers or Everything You Wantedto Know About Statistics But Thought You CouldNever Understand
Collection of Private School Finance Data:Development of a Questionnaire
X03
Contact
Lee Hoffman
Dan Kasprzyk
Dan Kasprzyk
Mary Rollefson
Susan Ahmed
Steven Kaufman
Lee Hoffman
Shelley Burns
Shelley Burns
Steven Kaufman
Peter Stowe
Peter Stowe
Susan Ahmed
StephenBroughman
Number
97-23 (July)
97-24 (Aug.)
97-25 (Aug.)
97-26 (Oct.)
97-27 (Oct.)
97-28 (Oct.)
97-29 (Oct.)
97-30 (Oct.)
97-31 (Oct.)
97-32 (Oct.)
97-33 (Oct.)
97-34 (Oct.)
97-35 (Oct.)
97-36 (Oct.)
Listing of NCES Working Papers to DateContinued
Title
Further Cognitive Research on the Schools and StaffingSurvey (SASS) Teacher Listing Form
Formulating a Design for the ECLS: A Review ofLongitudinal Studies
1996 National Household Education Survey(NHES:96) Questionnaires: Screener/Household andLibrary, Parent and Family Involvement in Educationand Civic Involvement, Youth Civic Involvement, andAdult Civic Involvement
Strategies for Improving Accuracy of PostsecondaryFaculty Lists
Pilot Test of IPEDS Finance Survey
Comparison of Estimates in the 1996 NationalHousehold Education Survey
Can State Assessment Data be Used to Reduce StateNAEP Sample Sizes?
ACT's NAEP Redesign Project: Assessment Design isthe Key to Useful and Stable Assessment Results
NAEP Reconfigured: An Integrated Redesign of theNational Assessment of Educational Progress
Innovative Solutions to Intractable Large ScaleAssessment (Problem 2: Background Questionnaires)
Adult Literacy: An International Perspective
Comparison of Estimates from the 1993 NationalHousehold Education Survey
Design, Data Collection, Interview AdministrationTime, and Data Editing in the 1996 NationalHousehold Education Survey
Measuring the Quality of Program Environments inHead Start and Other Early Childhood Programs: AReview and Recommendations for Future Research
n 4
Contact
Dan Kasprzyk
Jerry West
Kathryn Chandler
Linda Zimbler
Peter Stowe
Kathryn Chandler
Steven Gorman
Steven Gorman
Steven Gorman
Steven Gorman
Marilyn Binkley
Kathryn Chandler
Kathryn Chandler
Jerry West
z
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
IC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
(9/92)
0 A. ((-1 cQ. 1